From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:14:11 -0600 From: Erik Andersen Subject: Re: the new VMt Message-ID: <20000925171411.A2397@codepoet.org> Reply-To: andersen@codepoet.org References: <20000925164249.G2615@redhat.com> <20000925105247.A13935@hq.fsmlabs.com> <20000925191829.A14612@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> <20000925115139.A14999@hq.fsmlabs.com> <20000925200454.A14728@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> <20000925121315.A15966@hq.fsmlabs.com> <20000925192453.R2615@redhat.com> <20000925123456.A16612@hq.fsmlabs.com> <20000925202549.V2615@redhat.com> <20000925140419.A18243@hq.fsmlabs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20000925140419.A18243@hq.fsmlabs.com>; from yodaiken@fsmlabs.com on Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 02:04:19PM -0600 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com Cc: MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon Sep 25, 2000 at 02:04:19PM -0600, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote: > > > all of the pending requests just as long as they are serialised, is > > this a problem? > > I think you are solving the wrong problem. On a small memory machine, the kernel, > utilities, and applications should be configured to use little memory. > BusyBox is better than BeanCount. > Granted that smaller apps can help -- for a particular workload. But while I am very partial to BusyBox (in fact I am about to cut a new release) I can assure you that OOM is easily possible even when your user space is tiny. I do it all the time. There are mallocs in busybox and when under memory pressure, the kernel still tends to fall over... -Erik -- Erik B. Andersen email: andersee@debian.org --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/