Re: Andrea VM changes
From: Alan Cox (alan_at_lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: 08/31/03
- Previous message: Daniel Jacobowitz: "Re: LMbench as gcc performance regression test?"
- In reply to: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Andrea VM changes"
- Next in thread: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Andrea VM changes"
- Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Andrea VM changes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:29:49 +0100
On Sul, 2003-08-31 at 15:59, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> And I don't see how you can avoid oom killing to ever happen if the apps
> recurse on the stack and growsdown some hundred megs. In such case
> you've to oom kill, since there's no synchronous failure path during the
> stack growsdown walk.
The stack grow fails and you get a signal. Its up to you to have a
language that handles this or in C enjoy the delights of sigaltstack. In
practice the settings are such that this case basically "doesnt happen"
for all normal use.
> I just don't think it solves or hides the other issues, it seems
> completely orthogonal to me, because you can still run oom during stack
> growsdown.
Agreed - and there will always be corner cases, people who don't want
strict overcommit etc. Thats why I said "as well". Its not a replacement
for OOM handling of some form.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Daniel Jacobowitz: "Re: LMbench as gcc performance regression test?"
- In reply to: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Andrea VM changes"
- Next in thread: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Andrea VM changes"
- Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Andrea VM changes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
