From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes From: Robert Love In-Reply-To: <3F614E36.7030206@genebrew.com> References: <200309120219.h8C2JANc004514@penguin.co.intel.com> <3F614912.3090801@genebrew.com> <3F614C1F.6010802@nortelnetworks.com> <3F614E36.7030206@genebrew.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1063342102.700.237.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:48:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rahul Karnik Cc: Chris Friesen , rusty@linux.co.intel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 00:40, Rahul Karnik wrote: > I was referring to the "strict overcommit" mode described in > Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting. Right. What Chris said is true. Strict overcommit has limitations, and hence it is not the default. > To me, it sounded like it was > describing modes that were alternatives to the proposed kernel panic on > oom, and I was merely suggesting we use the same /proc/sys/vm method to > specify oom behavior (maybe a string rather than numeric codes in case > we have several such options in the future). Apologies if this is not > related to what Rusty is talking about. I don't think the two are related. You can have both, separately or together. 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