From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from max.phys.uu.nl (max.phys.uu.nl [131.211.32.73]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA02292 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 14:02:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:18:34 +0100 (CET) From: Rik van Riel Reply-To: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: Two naive questions and a suggestion In-Reply-To: <19981125103132.H350@uni-koblenz.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: ralf@uni-koblenz.de Cc: jfm2@club-internet.fr, Linux MM List-ID: On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 ralf@uni-koblenz.de wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 1998 at 09:44:32PM -0000, jfm2@club-internet.fr wrote: > > > In situation like those above I would like Linux supported a concept > > like guaranteed processses: if VM is exhausted by one of them then try > > to get memory by killing non guaranteed processes and only kill the > > original one if all reamining survivors are guaranteed ones. > > It would be better for mission critical tasks. > > Long time ago I suggested to make it configurable whether a process > gets memory which might be overcommited or not. This leaves > malloc(x) == NULL to deal with and that's a userland problem anyway. Then what would you do when your 250MB non-overcommitting program needs to do a fork() in order to call /usr/bin/lpr? Install an extra 250MB of swap? I don't think so :) These are the situations where sane people want overcommit. regards, Rik -- who actually has 250MB of extra swap... +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl | | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org