I've been reading bits and pieces of this whole thread for a
while now, and have finally come up with an opinion. I think
that overcommit should be an option which defaults to
off. Here's why:
If something allocates memory and then later goes to use it and
dies, that is just plain wrong. If malloc says the memory is
avail, and allocates it, then it should be there.
Define "allocate". I define it with respect to memory allocation
as an app beign allocated or GIVEN a requested amount of memory
to use, and guaranteed that that memory exists and is available
for usage.
The reason for overcommit in the first place, and correct me if
I'm wrong here - is because some applications allocate more
memory than they really end up using.
If an application allocates a large amount of memory and then
does not use it, is the app not broken as designed? I say FIX
THE APPLICATION!
Can someone please explain to me how and why an app would
allocate a large amount of memory and then not use it? Please
give specific examples since I can't fathom the reason. I think
an app that requests a lot of memory and then doesn't use it is
BAD - broken as designed. I can see legitimate allocation of
SMALL amounts of unused memory as speculation in time critical
code, or for optimization, etc.. but not large amounts.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Either way it should be tuneable
and disableable.
I felt that since I had to download 20Mb of this thread this
week that I'd throw in my $0.02 as well. ;o)
TTYL
-- Mike A. Harris Linux advocate Computer Consultant GNU advocate Capslock Consulting Open Source advocateI've overclocked my keyboard interface. It's quite messy dipping my hands into the mineral oil, but *MAN* is my keyboard ever fast now! - Anonymous Coward
- 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 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:14 EST