Re: [RFC] Arch option to touch newly allocated pages

Daniel Phillips
2002-03-06T23:20:25Z

On March 6, 2002 05:36 pm, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 04:24:17PM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On March 6, 2002 04:24 pm, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 03:59:22PM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > Suppose you have 512 MB memory and an equal amount of swap. You start 8
> > > > umls with 64 MB each. With your and Peter's suggestion, the system always
> > > > goes into swap. Whereas if the memory is only allocated on demand it
> > > > probably doesn't.
> > >
> > > As I said previously, going into swap is preferable over randomly killing
> > > new tasks under heavy load.
> >
> > Huh? In the example I gave, you will never oom but with your suggestion, you
> > will always go needlessly go into swap. I'm suprised that you and Peter are
> > aguing in favor of wasting resources.
>
> I'm arguing in favour of predictable behaviour. Stability and reliability
> are more important than a bit of swap space.

That's the same argument that says memory overcommit should not be allowed.

--
Daniel