Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> It sends a SIGKILL (9) unless the process is doing raw io, in which case
> it sends SIGTERM (15). It can't really wait - at this stage the kernel
> is in trouble - it can either kill processes or panic. The whole idea of
> strict accounting is not to let it get to this st
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I believe that the swap slot can be subsequently freed, though. In
theory your available virtual memory should be (almost) RAM+swap. In
practice, Linux can run too close to that limit, (or way over it if you
turn the checks off). But restricting t
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I believe that the swap slot can be subsequently freed, though. In
> theory your available virtual memory should be (almost) RAM+swap. In
> practice, Linux can run too close to that limit, (or way over it if you
> turn the checks off). But restricting the maximum possible
Manfred Spraul wrote:
It is strange to choose 50% of RAM plus swap (what if your spam is
small). I thought it would be 100% of RAM plus the swap that exceeds RAM
size.
Linux doesn't release the swap file page when a page is read back: If
a page is only read by the user space app, then the s
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
Hi all,
Following is from Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting
-
2 - (NEW) strict overcommit. The total address space commit
for the system is not permitted to exceed swap + a
configurable percentage (default is 50) of physical
You need to allow some head room, I should think. Actually, the
equivalent of the previously discussed paranoid mode would be to set the
percentage to 0, i.e. ensure you can put every page in swap. If you say
50% then the chances of your running out of room are exceedingly small.
andrew
Bruce
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Following is from Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting
> -
> 2 - (NEW) strict overcommit. The total address space commit
> for the system is not permitted to exceed swap + a
> configurable percentage (defa
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:22:36PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> BTW, what is the sway of switching disk IO scheduler in 2.6? Could not find
> any references to sysctl switching. Andrew Morton's TODO list still list it
> as TODO.
Sorry, I was mistaken: you can switch I/O schedulers by spec
I take that last remark back - it is there whether or not
CONFIG_SECURITY is defined or not. The code is in 2 places - ugh.
andrew
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Yes, in 2.6, which is not yet released. Even after it is released I
expect it to take some time to bed down and make its way into vendor
rel
On Thursday 28 August 2003 17:11, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Yes, in 2.6, which is not yet released. Even after it is released I
> expect it to take some time to bed down and make its way into vendor
> releases, if the history of 2.4 is anything to go by.
Better late than never. I sincerely hope that
Yes, in 2.6, which is not yet released. Even after it is released I
expect it to take some time to bed down and make its way into vendor
releases, if the history of 2.4 is anything to go by.
Incidentally, it looks to me like it is only in 2.6 if your kernel is
built with CONFIG_SECURITY, which
Hi all,
Following is from Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting
-
2 - (NEW) strict overcommit. The total address space commit
for the system is not permitted to exceed swap + a
configurable percentage (default is 50) of physical RAM.
12 matches
Mail list logo
