Re: Virtual vs. physical swap & shared memory forks (clone)

From: Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br)
Date: Sat Mar 25 2000 - 21:13:21 EST

  • Next message: Jesse Pollard: "Re: Virtual vs. physical swap & shared memory forks (clone)"

    On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
    > Rik van Riel writes:
    > > On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Linda Walsh wrote:
    > >
    > > > The idea is *predictability*. Guarantees of behavior.
    > > > Your user deamon is fine for many cases, but it's execution is
    > > > not deterministic.
    > >
    > > Please back up your assertions with code. If you can implement
    > > a non-overcommit option which doesn't put overhead in the normal
    > > kernel, I'm sure people will use it.
    >
    > It would probably be helpful to the audience at large to explain
    > just how overheads could increase with non-overcommit.

    The exact bookkeeping required when you do allocations
    and frees on non-allocated memory (for which only the
    address space is accounted) will give a little bit
    (probably negligable) of overhead.

    The inherent swap space overhead non-overcommit gives
    isn't an issue here. People can chose for it and will
    do so if they think non-overcommit is going to help
    them :)

    cheers,

    Rik

    --
    The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network
    of people. That is its real strength.
    

    Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/

    - 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 : Sat Mar 25 2000 - 21:16:26 EST