Re: Out Of Memory in v. 2.1
david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
4 Oct 1998 19:44:25 -0700
In article <linux.kernel.199810050034.UAA06061@hilfy.ece.cmu.edu>,
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>In message <6v8rfc$8jt@pell.pell.portland.or.us>, david parsons writes:
>+-----
>| That's one thing I've always wondered about. Why not have the system
>| keep track of total memory instead of wanting to mirror memory onto
>| swap? It seems to me that if you have 512mb of core and 128mb of
>| swap that you've got 640mb of memory and you should be able to do
>| allocations against that, since either a page will be in core or
>| on the swap device.
>+--->8
>
>And if you could treat swap identically with main memory (i.e. access data
>directly in swap), that would make sense. Problem is, swap has to be loaded
>into main memory to be accessed... so now you need to reserve blocks of main
>memory so you have places for swap pages to go.
Yes, but you certainly don't need to reserve the entirety of
core to do it. Keep aside 126k as a transfer area (if
you even need that much) and you've still got the rest to use.
Sure, performance will start to suck dead bunnies through a
straw as you approach having only 128k free, but when you run
out of memory it sucks anyway.
____
david parsons \bi/ not overwhelmingly convinced that overcommit
\/ is always the best choice.
-
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/