Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 07:59:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 07:59:22 -0400 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:19987 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 07:59:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 08:59:19 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Krzysztof Rusocki Cc: , Subject: Re: %u-order allocation failed In-Reply-To: <20011005130722.A6570@main.braxis.co.uk> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Krzysztof Rusocki wrote: > After simple bash fork bombing (about 200 forks) on my UP Celeron/96MB > I get quite a lot %u-allocations failed, but only when swap is turned > off. > I'm not familiar with LinuxVM.. so... is it normal behaviour ? or (if not) > what's happening when such messages are printed my kernel ? This is perfectly normal behaviour: 1) on your system, you have no process limit configured for yourself so you can start processes until all resources (memory, file descriptors, ...) are used 2) when all processes are used, there really is no way the kernel can buy you more hardware on ebay and install it on the fly ... all it can do is start failing allocations On production systems, good admins setup per-user limits for the various resources so no single user is able to run the system into the ground. regards, Rik -- DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/ (volunteers needed) http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/