Hi Alan,
On 05/13/2016 05:41 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> My understanding is that there was a time when there was no overcommit at
>> all.
>> If that's the case, understanding why overcommit was introduced would be
>> helpful.
>
> Linux always had overcommit.
>
> The origin of
Hi Alan,
On 05/13/2016 05:41 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> My understanding is that there was a time when there was no overcommit at
>> all.
>> If that's the case, understanding why overcommit was introduced would be
>> helpful.
>
> Linux always had overcommit.
>
> The origin of
On Wed 18-05-16 17:18:45, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On 05/17/2016 10:16 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 17-05-16 18:16:58, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
> > The global OOM means there is _no_ memory at all. Many kernel
> > operations will need some memory to do something useful.
On Wed 18-05-16 17:18:45, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On 05/17/2016 10:16 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 17-05-16 18:16:58, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
> > The global OOM means there is _no_ memory at all. Many kernel
> > operations will need some memory to do something useful.
On 2016-05-18 11:19, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Austin,
On 05/17/2016 07:29 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
I see the difference, your answer seems a bit like the one from Austin,
basically:
- killing a process is a sort of kernel protection attempting to deal "automatically"
with some
On 2016-05-18 11:19, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Austin,
On 05/17/2016 07:29 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
I see the difference, your answer seems a bit like the one from Austin,
basically:
- killing a process is a sort of kernel protection attempting to deal "automatically"
with some
Hi Michal,
On 05/17/2016 10:16 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-05-16 18:16:58, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> [...]
>> From reading Documentation/cgroup-v1/memory.txt (and from a few
>> replies here talking about cgroups), it looks like the OOM-killer is
>> still being actively discussed, well,
Hi Michal,
On 05/17/2016 10:16 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-05-16 18:16:58, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> [...]
>> From reading Documentation/cgroup-v1/memory.txt (and from a few
>> replies here talking about cgroups), it looks like the OOM-killer is
>> still being actively discussed, well,
Hi Austin,
On 05/17/2016 07:29 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> I see the difference, your answer seems a bit like the one from Austin,
>> basically:
>> - killing a process is a sort of kernel protection attempting to deal
>> "automatically" with some situation, like deciding what is a
Hi Austin,
On 05/17/2016 07:29 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> I see the difference, your answer seems a bit like the one from Austin,
>> basically:
>> - killing a process is a sort of kernel protection attempting to deal
>> "automatically" with some situation, like deciding what is a
On Tue 17-05-16 18:16:58, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
> From reading Documentation/cgroup-v1/memory.txt (and from a few
> replies here talking about cgroups), it looks like the OOM-killer is
> still being actively discussed, well, there's also "cgroup-v2".
> My understanding is that cgroup's
On Tue 17-05-16 18:16:58, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
> From reading Documentation/cgroup-v1/memory.txt (and from a few
> replies here talking about cgroups), it looks like the OOM-killer is
> still being actively discussed, well, there's also "cgroup-v2".
> My understanding is that cgroup's
On 2016-05-17 12:16, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Michal,
On 05/17/2016 10:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 17-05-16 10:24:20, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
Also, under what conditions would copy-on-write fail?
When you have no memory or swap pages free and you touch a COW page that
is
On 2016-05-17 12:16, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Michal,
On 05/17/2016 10:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 17-05-16 10:24:20, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
Also, under what conditions would copy-on-write fail?
When you have no memory or swap pages free and you touch a COW page that
is
Hi Michal,
On 05/17/2016 10:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-05-16 10:24:20, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> [...]
Also, under what conditions would copy-on-write fail?
>>>
>>> When you have no memory or swap pages free and you touch a COW page that
>>> is currently shared. At that point
Hi Michal,
On 05/17/2016 10:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-05-16 10:24:20, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> [...]
Also, under what conditions would copy-on-write fail?
>>>
>>> When you have no memory or swap pages free and you touch a COW page that
>>> is currently shared. At that point
On 10/05/2016 13:56, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Currently the initial value of the overcommit mode is OVERCOMMIT_GUESS.
> However, on embedded systems it is usually better to disable overcommit
> to avoid waking up the OOM-killer and its well known undesirable
> side-effects.
There is an
On 10/05/2016 13:56, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Currently the initial value of the overcommit mode is OVERCOMMIT_GUESS.
> However, on embedded systems it is usually better to disable overcommit
> to avoid waking up the OOM-killer and its well known undesirable
> side-effects.
There is an
On Tue 17-05-16 10:24:20, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
> >> Also, under what conditions would copy-on-write fail?
> >
> > When you have no memory or swap pages free and you touch a COW page that
> > is currently shared. At that point there is no resource to back to the
> > copy so something must
On Tue 17-05-16 10:24:20, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
> >> Also, under what conditions would copy-on-write fail?
> >
> > When you have no memory or swap pages free and you touch a COW page that
> > is currently shared. At that point there is no resource to back to the
> > copy so something must
Hi Alan,
On 05/13/2016 05:43 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> But wouldn't those affect a given process at at time?
>> Does that means that the OOM-killer is woken up to kill process X when those
>> situations arise on process Y?
>
> Not sure I understand the question.
I'm sorry for the "at
Hi Alan,
On 05/13/2016 05:43 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> But wouldn't those affect a given process at at time?
>> Does that means that the OOM-killer is woken up to kill process X when those
>> situations arise on process Y?
>
> Not sure I understand the question.
I'm sorry for the "at
On 2016-05-13 11:37, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Alan,
On 05/13/2016 05:04 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
Perhaps Sebastian's choice could be made to depend on CONFIG_EMBEDDED,
rather than CONFIG_EXPERT?
Even if the overcommit behavior is different on those systems the
primary question hasn't
On 2016-05-13 11:37, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Alan,
On 05/13/2016 05:04 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
Perhaps Sebastian's choice could be made to depend on CONFIG_EMBEDDED,
rather than CONFIG_EXPERT?
Even if the overcommit behavior is different on those systems the
primary question hasn't
> But wouldn't those affect a given process at at time?
> Does that means that the OOM-killer is woken up to kill process X when those
> situations arise on process Y?
Not sure I understand the question.
> Also, under what conditions would copy-on-write fail?
When you have no memory or swap
> But wouldn't those affect a given process at at time?
> Does that means that the OOM-killer is woken up to kill process X when those
> situations arise on process Y?
Not sure I understand the question.
> Also, under what conditions would copy-on-write fail?
When you have no memory or swap
> My understanding is that there was a time when there was no overcommit at all.
> If that's the case, understanding why overcommit was introduced would be
> helpful.
Linux always had overcommit.
The origin of overcommit is virtual memory for the most part. In a
classic swapping system without
> My understanding is that there was a time when there was no overcommit at all.
> If that's the case, understanding why overcommit was introduced would be
> helpful.
Linux always had overcommit.
The origin of overcommit is virtual memory for the most part. In a
classic swapping system without
Hi Alan,
On 05/13/2016 05:04 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>> Perhaps Sebastian's choice could be made to depend on CONFIG_EMBEDDED,
>>> rather than CONFIG_EXPERT?
>>
>> Even if the overcommit behavior is different on those systems the
>> primary question hasn't been answered yet. Why cannot
Hi Alan,
On 05/13/2016 05:04 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>> Perhaps Sebastian's choice could be made to depend on CONFIG_EMBEDDED,
>>> rather than CONFIG_EXPERT?
>>
>> Even if the overcommit behavior is different on those systems the
>> primary question hasn't been answered yet. Why cannot
Hi Alan,
On 05/13/2016 05:11 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> It seems important to point out that Sebastian's patch does NOT change
>> the default behavior. It merely creates a knob allowing one to override
>> the default via Kconfig.
>>
>> +choice
>> +prompt "Overcommit Mode"
>> +
Hi Alan,
On 05/13/2016 05:11 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> It seems important to point out that Sebastian's patch does NOT change
>> the default behavior. It merely creates a knob allowing one to override
>> the default via Kconfig.
>>
>> +choice
>> +prompt "Overcommit Mode"
>> +
On Fri 13-05-16 16:11:04, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > It seems important to point out that Sebastian's patch does NOT change
> > the default behavior. It merely creates a knob allowing one to override
> > the default via Kconfig.
> >
> > +choice
> > + prompt "Overcommit Mode"
> > + default
On Fri 13-05-16 16:11:04, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > It seems important to point out that Sebastian's patch does NOT change
> > the default behavior. It merely creates a knob allowing one to override
> > the default via Kconfig.
> >
> > +choice
> > + prompt "Overcommit Mode"
> > + default
On Fri 13-05-16 17:15:26, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> On 05/13/2016 05:01 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:34:52 +0200
> > Sebastian Frias wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Austin,
> >>
> >> On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> >>> On
On Fri 13-05-16 17:15:26, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> On 05/13/2016 05:01 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:34:52 +0200
> > Sebastian Frias wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Austin,
> >>
> >> On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> >>> On 2016-05-13 08:39,
Hi Michal,
On 05/13/2016 04:51 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> The default should cover the most use cases. If you can prove that the
> vast majority of embeded systems are different and would _benefit_ from
> a different default I wouldn't be opposed to change the default there.
I'm unsure of a
Hi Michal,
On 05/13/2016 04:51 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> The default should cover the most use cases. If you can prove that the
> vast majority of embeded systems are different and would _benefit_ from
> a different default I wouldn't be opposed to change the default there.
I'm unsure of a
Hi Alan,
On 05/13/2016 05:01 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:34:52 +0200
> Sebastian Frias wrote:
>
>> Hi Austin,
>>
>> On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
My point is that it
Hi Alan,
On 05/13/2016 05:01 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:34:52 +0200
> Sebastian Frias wrote:
>
>> Hi Austin,
>>
>> On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
My point is that it seems to be
On 2016-05-13 10:35, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-05-13 09:32, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Well, it's hard to report, since it is essentially the result of a dynamic
system.
I could assume it killed terminals with a long history
On 2016-05-13 10:35, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-05-13 09:32, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Well, it's hard to report, since it is essentially the result of a dynamic
system.
I could assume it killed terminals with a long history
> It seems important to point out that Sebastian's patch does NOT change
> the default behavior. It merely creates a knob allowing one to override
> the default via Kconfig.
>
> +choice
> + prompt "Overcommit Mode"
> + default OVERCOMMIT_GUESS
> + depends on EXPERT
Which is still
> It seems important to point out that Sebastian's patch does NOT change
> the default behavior. It merely creates a knob allowing one to override
> the default via Kconfig.
>
> +choice
> + prompt "Overcommit Mode"
> + default OVERCOMMIT_GUESS
> + depends on EXPERT
Which is still
> > Perhaps Sebastian's choice could be made to depend on CONFIG_EMBEDDED,
> > rather than CONFIG_EXPERT?
>
> Even if the overcommit behavior is different on those systems the
> primary question hasn't been answered yet. Why cannot this be done from
> the userspace? In other words what wouldn't
> > Perhaps Sebastian's choice could be made to depend on CONFIG_EMBEDDED,
> > rather than CONFIG_EXPERT?
>
> Even if the overcommit behavior is different on those systems the
> primary question hasn't been answered yet. Why cannot this be done from
> the userspace? In other words what wouldn't
On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:34:52 +0200
Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Austin,
>
> On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> > On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> >>
> >> My point is that it seems to be possible to deal with such conditions in a
> >> more
On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:34:52 +0200
Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Austin,
>
> On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> > On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> >>
> >> My point is that it seems to be possible to deal with such conditions in a
> >> more controlled way, ie: a
On 2016-05-13 10:23, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 04:14 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-05-13 09:34, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
My point is that it seems to be
On 2016-05-13 10:23, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 04:14 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-05-13 09:34, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
My point is that it seems to be
On 13/05/2016 16:51, Michal Hocko wrote:
> The default should cover the most use cases. If you can prove that the
> vast majority of embedded systems are different and would _benefit_ from
> a different default I wouldn't be opposed to change the default there.
It seems important to point out
On 13/05/2016 16:51, Michal Hocko wrote:
> The default should cover the most use cases. If you can prove that the
> vast majority of embedded systems are different and would _benefit_ from
> a different default I wouldn't be opposed to change the default there.
It seems important to point out
On Fri 13-05-16 16:35:20, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Austin,
>
> On 05/13/2016 03:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> > On 2016-05-13 09:32, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> >> I didn't see that in Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting or am I
> >> looking in the wrong place?
> > It's controlled by a
On Fri 13-05-16 16:35:20, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Austin,
>
> On 05/13/2016 03:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> > On 2016-05-13 09:32, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> >> I didn't see that in Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting or am I
> >> looking in the wrong place?
> > It's controlled by a
On Fri 13-05-16 14:39:01, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On 05/13/2016 02:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 13-05-16 11:52:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
> >> Indeed, I was hoping we could throw some light into that.
> >> My patch had another note:
> >
> > I cannot really tell
On Fri 13-05-16 14:39:01, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On 05/13/2016 02:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 13-05-16 11:52:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
> >> Indeed, I was hoping we could throw some light into that.
> >> My patch had another note:
> >
> > I cannot really tell
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-05-13 09:32, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>> I didn't see that in Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting or am I looking
>> in the wrong place?
> It's controlled by a sysctl value, so it's listed in
> Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-05-13 09:32, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>> I didn't see that in Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting or am I looking
>> in the wrong place?
> It's controlled by a sysctl value, so it's listed in
> Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 04:14 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-05-13 09:34, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>> Hi Austin,
>>
>> On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
My point is that it seems to be possible to deal with such
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 04:14 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-05-13 09:34, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>> Hi Austin,
>>
>> On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
My point is that it seems to be possible to deal with such
Hi Michal,
On 05/13/2016 04:01 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 13-05-16 14:15:35, Mason wrote:
>> On 13/05/2016 13:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, this is my laptop where I do not run anything really special
>>> (xfce, browser, few consoles, git, mutt):
>>> $ grep Commit /proc/meminfo
>>>
Hi Michal,
On 05/13/2016 04:01 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 13-05-16 14:15:35, Mason wrote:
>> On 13/05/2016 13:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, this is my laptop where I do not run anything really special
>>> (xfce, browser, few consoles, git, mutt):
>>> $ grep Commit /proc/meminfo
>>>
On 2016-05-13 09:34, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
My point is that it seems to be possible to deal with such conditions in a more
controlled way, ie: a way that is less random and less
On 2016-05-13 09:34, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
My point is that it seems to be possible to deal with such conditions in a more
controlled way, ie: a way that is less random and less
On Fri 13-05-16 14:15:35, Mason wrote:
> On 13/05/2016 13:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > Anyway, this is my laptop where I do not run anything really special
> > (xfce, browser, few consoles, git, mutt):
> > $ grep Commit /proc/meminfo
> > CommitLimit: 3497288 kB
> > Committed_AS:3560804
On Fri 13-05-16 14:15:35, Mason wrote:
> On 13/05/2016 13:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > Anyway, this is my laptop where I do not run anything really special
> > (xfce, browser, few consoles, git, mutt):
> > $ grep Commit /proc/meminfo
> > CommitLimit: 3497288 kB
> > Committed_AS:3560804
On 2016-05-13 09:32, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Well, a more urgent problem would be that in that case overcommit=never is not
really well tested.
I know more people who use
On 2016-05-13 09:32, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
Well, a more urgent problem would be that in that case overcommit=never is not
really well tested.
I know more people who use
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>>
>> My point is that it seems to be possible to deal with such conditions in a
>> more controlled way, ie: a way that is less random and less abrupt.
> There's an option for the
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>>
>> My point is that it seems to be possible to deal with such conditions in a
>> more controlled way, ie: a way that is less random and less abrupt.
> There's an option for the
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>> Well, a more urgent problem would be that in that case overcommit=never is
>> not really well tested.
> I know more people who use overcommit=never than overcommit=always. I use it
>
Hi Austin,
On 05/13/2016 03:11 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>> Well, a more urgent problem would be that in that case overcommit=never is
>> not really well tested.
> I know more people who use overcommit=never than overcommit=always. I use it
>
On 2016-05-13 06:18, Mason wrote:
On 13/05/2016 11:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 13-05-16 10:44:30, Mason wrote:
On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically thru
On 2016-05-13 06:18, Mason wrote:
On 13/05/2016 11:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 13-05-16 10:44:30, Mason wrote:
On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically thru
On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
On 05/13/2016 02:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 13-05-16 11:52:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
From what I remember, one of the LTP maintainers said that it is
highly unlikely people test (or run LTP for that matter) with
different settings for
On 2016-05-13 08:39, Sebastian Frias wrote:
On 05/13/2016 02:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 13-05-16 11:52:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
From what I remember, one of the LTP maintainers said that it is
highly unlikely people test (or run LTP for that matter) with
different settings for
Hi Michal,
On 05/13/2016 02:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 13-05-16 11:52:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>>
>> By the way, do you know what's the rationale to allow this setting to
>> be controlled by the userspace dynamically? Was it for testing only?
>
> Dunno, but I guess the default might
Hi Michal,
On 05/13/2016 02:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 13-05-16 11:52:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>>
>> By the way, do you know what's the rationale to allow this setting to
>> be controlled by the userspace dynamically? Was it for testing only?
>
> Dunno, but I guess the default might
On 13/05/2016 13:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Anyway, this is my laptop where I do not run anything really special
> (xfce, browser, few consoles, git, mutt):
> $ grep Commit /proc/meminfo
> CommitLimit: 3497288 kB
> Committed_AS:3560804 kB
>
> I am running with the default overcommit setup
On 13/05/2016 13:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Anyway, this is my laptop where I do not run anything really special
> (xfce, browser, few consoles, git, mutt):
> $ grep Commit /proc/meminfo
> CommitLimit: 3497288 kB
> Committed_AS:3560804 kB
>
> I am running with the default overcommit setup
On Fri 13-05-16 11:52:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 05/13/2016 10:44 AM, Mason wrote:
> > On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically
> >>>
On Fri 13-05-16 11:52:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 05/13/2016 10:44 AM, Mason wrote:
> > On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically
> >>>
On Fri 13-05-16 12:18:54, Mason wrote:
> On 13/05/2016 11:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 13-05-16 10:44:30, Mason wrote:
> >> On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> >>> [...]
> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can
On Fri 13-05-16 12:18:54, Mason wrote:
> On 13/05/2016 11:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 13-05-16 10:44:30, Mason wrote:
> >> On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> >>> [...]
> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can
Hi,
On 05/13/2016 12:18 PM, Mason wrote:
> On 13/05/2016 11:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Fri 13-05-16 10:44:30, Mason wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>
On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be
Hi,
On 05/13/2016 12:18 PM, Mason wrote:
> On 13/05/2016 11:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Fri 13-05-16 10:44:30, Mason wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>
On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be
On 13/05/2016 11:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 13-05-16 10:44:30, Mason wrote:
>> On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>>> [...]
NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically thru
sysctl, but on
On 13/05/2016 11:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 13-05-16 10:44:30, Mason wrote:
>> On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>>> [...]
NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically thru
sysctl, but on
On Fri 13-05-16 10:44:30, Mason wrote:
> On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> > [...]
> >> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically thru
> >> sysctl, but on embedded systems, where we know in advance that
On Fri 13-05-16 10:44:30, Mason wrote:
> On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> > [...]
> >> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically thru
> >> sysctl, but on embedded systems, where we know in advance that
Hi,
On 05/13/2016 10:44 AM, Mason wrote:
> On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
>> On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>> [...]
>>> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically thru
>>> sysctl, but on embedded systems, where we know in advance that
Hi,
On 05/13/2016 10:44 AM, Mason wrote:
> On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
>> On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>> [...]
>>> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically thru
>>> sysctl, but on embedded systems, where we know in advance that
On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> [...]
>> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically thru
>> sysctl, but on embedded systems, where we know in advance that overcommit
>> will be disabled, there's no reason to
On 13/05/2016 10:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> [...]
>> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically thru
>> sysctl, but on embedded systems, where we know in advance that overcommit
>> will be disabled, there's no reason to
On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically thru
> sysctl, but on embedded systems, where we know in advance that overcommit
> will be disabled, there's no reason to postpone such setting.
To be honest I am not
On Tue 10-05-16 13:56:30, Sebastian Frias wrote:
[...]
> NOTE: I understand that the overcommit mode can be changed dynamically thru
> sysctl, but on embedded systems, where we know in advance that overcommit
> will be disabled, there's no reason to postpone such setting.
To be honest I am not
..@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, Michal
>> Hocko <mho...@suse.com>, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
>> CC: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, mason <slash@free.fr>
>> Subject: [PATCH] mm: add config op
to the 'help' section the warning goes indeed away.
Also notice that 'config OVERCOMMIT_NEVER' is not giving warnings even if its
'help' section has also 3 lines.
>
>> Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:56:30 +0200
>> From: Sebastian Frias
>> To: linux...@kvack.org, Andrew Morton ,
56:30 +0200
> From: Sebastian Frias <s...@laposte.net>
> To: linux...@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, Michal
> Hocko <mho...@suse.com>, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
> CC: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, mason <
30 +0200
> From: Sebastian Frias
> To: linux...@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Michal
> Hocko , Linus Torvalds
> CC: LKML , mason
> Subject: [PATCH] mm: add config option to select the initial overcommit mode
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo