On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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. Exactly, except the origin (mmap() failing) was hidden behind layers upon layers of user-space memory management code (not ours), which just said "failed to allocate N bytes" (with N about 0.001% of the free RAM). And it wasn't reproducible.
