On 21 Mar 2000 16:2:51 +0100, you wrote:
>Den 19-Mar-00 22:31:05 skrev James Sutherland følgende om "Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?":
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:39:23 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>>I have no problem with overcommit on a workstation system that is
>>>dedicated to one user. It is truly horrible to do that to a server,
>>>whether it is for web usage, mail, DNS, disk, or multiple users.
>
>> How is demand-allocation of VM a "horrible" thing to do?
>
> The way linux does it, for example. malloc() and fork() do not permit
>the kernel to do demand-allocation, but linux uses it in those cases
>anyway. That breaks programs.
Oh dear. You mean the standard says a 1Gb simulation calling fork() to
email a status update should only succeed if there is 1Gb of spare VM
lying around?!
I can understand malloc() being defined as allocating memory, rather
than just address space (as opposed to the current Linux
implementation), though.
The current implementations do have some merits, but there should
probably be an alternative call which DOES allocate memory.
James.
-
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 - 21:00:35 EST