On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:12:32AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Sun 26-11-17 17:09:32, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > - Reaching the limit causes various memory management system calls to > > fail with ENOMEM, which is a lie. Combined with the unpredictability > > of the number of mappings in a process, especially when non-trivial > > memory management or heavy file mapping is used, it can be difficult > > to reproduce these events and debug them. It's also confusing to get > > ENOMEM when you know you have lots of free RAM. [snip] > Could you be more explicit about _why_ we need to remove this tunable? > I am not saying I disagree, the removal simplifies the code but I do not > really see any justification here. I imagine he started seeing random syscalls failing with ENOMEM and eventually tracked it down to this stupid limit we used to need.
