Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?

From: Linda Walsh (law@sgi.com)
Date: Sun Mar 26 2000 - 18:15:03 EST

Next message: Lawrence Manning: "Re: wine and 2.3.99-pre3 followup (reproduced) (FAT problem?)"
Previous message: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl: "Re: Cylinder limits jumper for drives over 32GB"
In reply to: David Whysong: "Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?"
Next in thread: Richard Gooch: "Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?"
Reply: Richard Gooch: "Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?"
Reply: Marco Colombo: "Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

David Whysong wrote:
> If you run out of a resource, the system should not crash. The kernel just
> has to free up the resource. A convenient way of doing that is to kill a
> user process.

--- Then you have violated the integrity of the user-process space. Tell me, which processes are killed when the system runs out file descriptors? How about processes? Disk space? Why are you treating memory differently?

-l

-- Linda A Walsh | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI law@sgi.com | Voice: (650) 933-5338

- 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/

Next message: Lawrence Manning: "Re: wine and 2.3.99-pre3 followup (reproduced) (FAT problem?)"
Previous message: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl: "Re: Cylinder limits jumper for drives over 32GB"
In reply to: David Whysong: "Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?"
Next in thread: Richard Gooch: "Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?"
Reply: Richard Gooch: "Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?"
Reply: Marco Colombo: "Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:18 EST