From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] strict VM overcommit for stock 2.4 From: Robert Love In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 19 Jul 2002 11:06:33 -0700 Message-Id: <1027101993.1116.199.camel@sinai> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Szakacsits Szabolcs Cc: root@chaos.analogic.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2002-07-19 at 00:30, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > *However* distinguishing root and non-root users also in strict VM > overcommit would make a significant difference for general purpose > systems, this was always my point. > > Can you see the non-orthogonality now? Nope, I still disagree and there is no point going back and forth. We both agree that there are situations where both resource accounting (or some sort of root-protection like you want) and strict overcommit is required. I contend there are situations where only one or the other is needed. More importantly, I argue the two things should be kept separate. Putting some root safety net into strict accounting is a hack (how much of a net? etc.). You want to keep users from ruining things - get per-user resource limits. You want to keep the machine from overcommiting memory and thus not OOMing? Get strict accounting. You want both? Use both. I provided the first piece. Robert Love -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/