James Sutherland wrote:
> 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:
[...]
> >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...
Where are you getting this from? The whole point of that nice example I
gave previously was that there were no reasons whatsoever that it could
die. None at all. Zip. Nadda. Please find one.
Not to mention the program would be actively using the entire of its
allocated memory, so swap isn't exactly wasted. In fact, you now know
exactly how much memory+swap you need. In the example, it used 512MB. So
you'd need exactly (give or take a few pages) 512MB more RAM or swap
(preferably RAM). This would be exactly the same amount you'd need if
you ran it with overcommit turned on.
The important difference is that other processes will not cause the big
512MB process to die. This is the behaviour I've been trying to
describe.
-- John Ripley, empeg Ltd. http://www.empeg.com- 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 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:32 EST