Re: OOM killer???

Guest section DW
2001-03-29T12:58:19Z

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:02:38PM +0100, Sean Hunter wrote:

> The reason the aero engineers don't need to select a passanger to throw out
> when the plane is overloaded is simply that the plane operators do not allow
> the plane to become overloaded.

Yes. But today Linux willing overcommits. It would be better if
the default was not to.

> Furthermore, why do you suppose an aeroplane has more than one altimeter,
> artifical horizon and compass? Do you think it's because they are unable to
> make one of each that is reliable? Or do you think its because they are
> concerned about what happens if one fails _however unlikely that is_.

Unix V6 did not overcommit, and panicked if is was out of swap
because that was a cannot happen situation.
If you argue that we must design things so that there is no overcommit
and still have an OOM killer just in case, I have no objections at all.