[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45485357.6050403@openvz.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:57:11 +0300
From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To: Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
CC: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>, balbir@...ibm.com,
vatsa@...ibm.com, dev@...nvz.org, sekharan@...ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pj@....com, matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
rohitseth@...gle.com, menage@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] RFC: Memory Controller
Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 11:48 +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>> If memory is considered to be unreclaimable then actions should be
>> taken at mmap() time, not later! Rejecting mmap() is the only way to
>> limit user in unreclaimable memory consumption.
>
> I don't think this is necessarily true. Today, if a kernel exceeds its
> allocation limits (runs out of memory) it gets killed. Doing the
> limiting at mmap() time instead of fault time will keep a sparse memory
> applications from even being able to run.
If limiting _every_ mapping it will, but when limiting only
"private" mappings - no problems at all. BC code lives for
more than 3 years already and no claims from users on this
question yet.
> Now, failing an mmap() is a wee bit more graceful than a SIGBUS, but it
> certainly introduces its own set of problems.
>
> -- Dave
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists