Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes
From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: Rahul Karnik <rahul@genebrew.com>
Cc: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>, rusty@linux.co.intel.com,
       linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <3F614E36.7030206@genebrew.com>
References: <200309120219.h8C2JANc004514@penguin.co.intel.com>
	 <3F614912.3090801@genebrew.com> <3F614C1F.6010802@nortelnetworks.com>
	 <3F614E36.7030206@genebrew.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1063342102.700.237.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:48:22 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 972
Lines: 26

On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 00:40, Rahul Karnik wrote:

> I was referring to the "strict overcommit" mode described in 
> Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting.

Right.  What Chris said is true.  Strict overcommit has limitations, and
hence it is not the default.

> To me, it sounded like it was 
> describing modes that were alternatives to the proposed kernel panic on 
> oom, and I was merely suggesting we use the same /proc/sys/vm method to 
> specify oom behavior (maybe a string rather than numeric codes in case 
> we have several such options in the future). Apologies if this is not 
> related to what Rusty is talking about.

I don't think the two are related.  You can have both, separately or
together.

	Robert Love


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/