Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264120AbTKZKab (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:30:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264126AbTKZKab (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:30:31 -0500 Received: from natsmtp00.rzone.de ([81.169.145.165]:25582 "EHLO natsmtp00.webmailer.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264120AbTKZKa3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:30:29 -0500 Message-ID: <3FC480BF.9060301@softhome.net> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:30:23 +0100 From: "Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" Organization: Home Sweet Home User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030927 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rik van Riel CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: 2.2/2.4/2.6 VMs: do malloc() ever return NULL? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1680 Lines: 44 Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote: > > >>># echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory >>> >>>Then try again. >> >> What do you know what is not said in docs? >> What '2' means? > > Strict non-overcommit mode. You can allocate as much > non-file-backed virtual memory as will fit in swap, > plus /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_percentage worth of memory. > [ s/overcommit_percentage/overcommit_ratio/ ] Thanks! On 2.6 it works as expected. Test with two concurrent memory allocations took some time, but both apps stops exactly when memory was depleted. Great. Did rmap has something todo with this? As I see from implementation of do_mmap_pgoff() - it changed from 2.4 to 2.6 - but there are a lot of common things. If I will do dumb back port of this check to 2.4 - do you think it will work? 2.4->2.6 memory accounting changed? I didn't found this check in your rmap patches for 2.4.22. (btw thanks for keeping them up-to-date). -- Ihar 'Philips' Filipau / with best regards from Saarbruecken. -- _ _ _ Because the kernel depends on it existing. "init" |_|*|_| literally _is_ special from a kernel standpoint, |_|_|*| because its' the "reaper of zombies" (and, may I add, |*|*|*| that would be a great name for a rock band). -- Linus Torvalds - 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/