[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes

To: Rahul Karnik <rahul@genebrew.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes
From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:47:13 -0400
Cc: rusty@linux.co.intel.com, riel@conectiva.com.br,linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Fake-Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
In-Reply-To: <3F614912.3090801@genebrew.com>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mm-archive@humbolt.geo.uu.nl
References: <200309120219.h8C2JANc004514@penguin.co.intel.com> <3F614912.3090801@genebrew.com>
Sender: Rik van Riel <riel@nl.linux.org>

On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 00:18, Rahul Karnik wrote:

> How does this interact with the overcommit handling? Doesn't strict 
> overcommit also not oom, but rather return a memory allocation error?

Right.  Technically, with strict overcommit and a sufficient overcommit
ratio, you cannot OOM.

But this is for people who do have a chance of OOM, because strict
overcommit is not for everyone.

> Could we not add another overcommit mode where oom conditions cause a 
> kernel panic?

The two are unrelated.

	Robert Love

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>

References:
- [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes
  - From: Rusty Lynch <rusty@penguin.co.intel.com>
- Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes
  - From: Rahul Karnik <rahul@genebrew.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes
Next by Date: Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes
Prev by thread: RE: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes
Next by thread: Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread