From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 03:39:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 03:39:34 -0400 Received: from fe010.worldonline.dk ([212.54.64.195]:59657 "HELO fe010.worldonline.dk") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 03:39:23 -0400 Message-ID: <3BB427F1.5070403@eisenstein.dk> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 09:34:09 +0200 From: Jesper Juhl Organization: Eisenstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16 i586; en-US; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Cox CC: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel , Thomas Hood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: OOM killer In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: >>> shed:~# echo 0 >/proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory >>> shed:~# cat /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory >>> 0 >> >> ahh, I see. Well, you live and learn ;) >> >> I think I've got to do my research better before writing mails to lkml. > > > In part. > > The option you want is '2' which isnt implemented 8) > > 0 - I don't care > 1 - Use heuristics to guesstimate avoiding overcommit Thank you for that info :) I wrote a small test program that allocated memory in increasingly larger chunks, and I saw no major difference with a setting of "0" or "1", it seemed both settings allowed my program to allocate exactely the same amount of mem before ENOMEM was returned (I can send the test program on request). I'll be looking forward to a setting of "2" becomming available :) Best regards Jesper Juhl