From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes From: Robert Love In-Reply-To: <3F614912.3090801@genebrew.com> References: <200309120219.h8C2JANc004514@penguin.co.intel.com> <3F614912.3090801@genebrew.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1063342032.700.234.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:47:13 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rahul Karnik Cc: rusty@linux.co.intel.com, riel@conectiva.com.br, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 00:18, Rahul Karnik wrote: > How does this interact with the overcommit handling? Doesn't strict > overcommit also not oom, but rather return a memory allocation error? Right. Technically, with strict overcommit and a sufficient overcommit ratio, you cannot OOM. But this is for people who do have a chance of OOM, because strict overcommit is not for everyone. > Could we not add another overcommit mode where oom conditions cause a > kernel panic? The two are unrelated. 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/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org