linux-kernel - Re: question about overcommit

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:51:00 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	david@...g.hm
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: question about overcommit

O> my belief from watching the discussions is that it will evict things from 
> ram to make space for the new allocation, and as a result running with 
> overcommit disabled ends up wasting a noticable amount of ram. As a result 

No-overcommit is address space accounting alone. It doesn't change actual
allocation or management of memory, it simply ensures that there should
always be enough space to ensure it can sort itself out without having to
OOM something.

It's a bit like bank loans - providing I know how much money is available
I don't have to do much except for ensure the total loaned is covered. In
the overcommit mode we instead run like the US banking system and pray we
don't hit a messy OOM (out of money) situation.

Alan
--
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/