On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Could you be more explicit about _why_ we need to remove this tunable?
>> I am not saying I disagree, the removal simplifies the code but I do not
>> really see any justification here.
>
> I imagine he started seeing random syscalls failing with ENOMEM and
> eventually tracked it down to this stupid limit we used to need.
Exactly, except the origin (mmap() failing) was hidden behind layers upon layers
of user-space memory management code (not ours), which just said "failed to
allocate N bytes" (with N about 0.001% of the free RAM). And it
wasn't reproducible.
From 1585248055825199290@xxx Mon Nov 27 19:19:15 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1585145582796220475
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread