> > I take it you run your sash mlock()ed with a special
> > kernel patch to make sure procfs doesn't need to allocate
> > memory on sash's behalf :)
>
> Unfortunatelly not.
>
> But if would be posible to somehow dividie the memory into overcommitable
> and one which is not overcommitable it could help.
Wouldn't this problem be avoided if the kernel DIDN'T overcommit memory?
I mean, nobody tolerates their filesystem overcommitting blocks it
doesn't have (or maybe they do and my reality is a myth). Why should
it be tolerated for virtual memory?
Are the benefits to saying "uh, sure. we only have 600 megs of VM, but uh,
feel free to let your system commit 1 gig" worth it? What makes that
behavior desirable?
I'm not condemning, I'm just curious.
-MB
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:22 EST