From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269073AbUHaT4R (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:56:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269064AbUHaTve (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:51:34 -0400 Received: from mx-out.forthnet.gr ([193.92.150.6]:24693 "EHLO mx-out-01.forthnet.gr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269074AbUHaTta (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:49:30 -0400 From: V13 To: Alan Cox Subject: Re: PATCH: Root reservations for strict overcommit Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:49:35 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 Cc: Bill Davidsen , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20040831143449.GA26680@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1093970232.611.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1093970232.611.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200408312249.36218.v13@priest.com> X-Spam-Flag: NO Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 31 August 2004 19:37, Alan Cox wrote: > On Maw, 2004-08-31 at 18:13, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > Would it be a problem to put a lower bound on how much to leave for > > root? If it's really too small to be useful, perhaps one of (a) reserve > > enough to be useful or (b) don't bother to reserve at all, should be > > Possibly. I'm currently following what someone appears to have decided > is correct behaviour. It probably should be tunable I believe it makes more sense to describe it as KB instead of %. Noone should have to reserve 120MB for root on a 4G box. Even if it is tunable, memory size seems better than percent since you'll not have to change it when you add/remove memory from your box. <>