Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:46:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:46:30 -0400 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:4100 "HELO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:46:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:49:39 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@duckman.distro.conectiva To: Pavel Machek Cc: Alan Cox , Robert Love , , , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5-rmap: VM strict overcommit In-Reply-To: <20020729222052.GA15219@elf.ucw.cz> 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 Content-Length: 970 Lines: 31 On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > In what scenario can "strict overcommit" kill? > > > > When the kernel grabs over 50% of RAM. Remember that includes page > > tables. I've seen the kernel taking 35% of RAM. > > But it could happen that kernel would attempt to allocate 101% of RAM > for page tables, right? At that even "paranoid overcommit" might be OOM, > right? Indeed, there are a number of places where memory allocation by the kernel is pretty much unbound. IMHO we need to fix those. regards, Rik -- http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2002/ "You're one of those condescending OLS attendants" "Here's a nickle kid. Go buy yourself a real t-shirt" 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/