Alan wrote: > Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That is why we have no-overcommit support. > > > > Alan, I think you know that this isn't really true, due to shared-libs. > > Shared libraries are correctly handled by no-overcommit and in fact they > have almost zero impact on out of memory questions because the shared > parts of the library are file backed and constant. That means they don't > actually cost swap space.
What I understood from Arjan is that the problem isn't swapspace, but rather that shared-libs are implement via a COW trick, which always overcommits, no matter what. > > > Now there is an argument for > > > a meaningful rlimit-as to go with it, and together I think they do > > > what you really need. > > > > The problem with rlimit is that it works per process. Tuning this by > > hand may be awkward and/or wasteful. What we need is to rlimit on a > > global basis, by calculating an upperlimit dynamically, such as to avoid > > overcommit/OOM. > > You've just described the existing no overcommit functionality, although > you've forgotten to allow for pre-reserving of stacks and some other > detail that has been found to make it work better as it has been refined. Are you saying there is some new no-overcommit functionality in 2.6.19, or has this been there before? Thanks! -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
