On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:12:13 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, James Sutherland wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:04:06 +0000, you wrote:
>[Lots of sensible stuff deleted]
>>>It's the ability to request non-overcommit that's essential, and I don't
>>>see what you have against it. With the current scheme of things this is
>>No it isn't. Just touch the memory on allocation.
>>If you want non-overcommitted memory, just touch it on allocation.
>>That's it. No need to mangle the kernel or anything else.
>As I have repeatedly stated, this does NOT prevent overcommit. You still
>have stack growth, kernel modules, other process heaps, etc. to deal with.
>Currently there is no way to disable overcommit in Linux.
True; to disable it completely, you would need to remove the dynamic
stack expansion, giving every process a fixed-size stack. Another Gb
or so of wasted swap, another few unexplained crashes...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:32 EST