> Alan, does it make sense, in ANY situation, to disable overcommit? Because
> AFAIK, a system without overcommit would always have to kill processes
> before an equivalent overcommitting system would.
You disable overcommit in some situations where you expect to see it occuring
regularly or where the cost is too high. Such systems generally aren't unix
and often are embedded controllers that dont even have a memory allocator
> It seems to me that this whole overcommit debate is just avoiding the real
> problem, which is how to decide which tasks to kill.
Which Rik van Riel has a very good handle on
-
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 24 2000 - 18:18:15 EST