Tracy R Reed wrote:
Mike Marion wrote:
Quoting Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
B) Linux is just a touch unstable when pushed hard
We've heard this for years from people who can't point to any reason
(line of code) why.
Excuse me? Most of the Unix world has pointed out that returning a
pointer to malloc() but not actually allocating the memory is a recipe
for instability.
Has Linus ever fixed this or does Linux *still* overallocate?
You can't go too far into "OOM". When you are out of memory you are out.
What do you expect it to do when OOM? It must be something which does
not require the allocation of any more memory. There is no perfect
solution. The current policy is to kill off the process which most
recently tried to malloc as this is probably the one likely to be using
up most of the memory.
And that's *wrong*. It penalizes processes which allocate what they
need when they need it rather than allocating a humongous chunk and
sitting on it.
In addition, there are certain processes that should *not* get killed, ever.
Again a recipe for instability.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
