Re: OOM killer???

Jesse Pollard
2001-03-29T16:25:35Z

Guest section DW <dwguest@win.tue.nl>:
>
> 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.

Preferably, the default should be a configure option, with runtime
alterations.

> > 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.

Ummm... no. The user got "ENOMEM" or "insufficient memory for fork", or
"swap error". The system didn't panic unless there was an I/O error on
the swap device.

> 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.

good.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.