Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

[Jonathan Morton]

>[ .... about non-overcommit .... ]
>> > Nobody feels its very important because nobody has implemented it.
>
>Enterprises use other systems because they have much better resource
>management than Linux -- adding non-overcommit wouldn't help them much.
>Desktop users, Linux newbies don't understand what's
>eager/early/non-overcommit vs lazy/late/overcommit memory management
>[just see these threads here if you aren't bored already enough ;)] and
>even if they do at last they don't have the ability to implement it. And
>between them, people are mostly fine with ulimit.
>
>> Small correction - It was implemented, just not included in the standard
>> kernel.
>
>Please note, adding optional non-overcommit also wouldn't help much
>without guaranteed/reserved resources [e.g. you are OOM -> appps, users
>complain, admin login in and BANG OOM killer just killed one of the
>jobs]. This was one of the reasons I made the reserved root memory
>patch [this is also the way other OS'es do]. Now just the different
>patches should be merged and write an OOM FAQ for users how to avoid,
>control, etc it].

I'm currently trying to apply the 2.3.99.whatever non-overcommit patch to
2.4.1 - decidedly nontrivial, lots of failed hunks, parts of the kernel
have changed significantly even in this (fairly short) time.

--------------------------------------------------------------
from:     Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail:     [e-mail]  (not for attachments)
big-mail: [e-mail]
uni-mail: [e-mail]

The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.

Get VNC Server for Macintosh from http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/vnc/

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GCS$/E/S dpu(!) s:- a20 C+++ UL++ P L+++ E W+ N- o? K? w--- O-- M++$ V? PS
PE- Y+ PGP++ t- 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D G e+ h+ r++ y+(*)
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----