On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Tharindu Rukshan Bamunuarachchi <btharindu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > thankx a lot Hugh ... I will try this out ... (bit harder patch > already patched SLES kernel :-p ) .... If patch conflicts are a problem, you really only need to put in the two-liner patch to mm/mmap.c: Alan was seeking perfection in the rest of the patch, but you can get away without it. > > BTW, what does Alan means by "strict overcommit" ? Ah, that phrase, yes, it's a nonsense, but many of us do say it by mistake. Alan meant to say "strict no-overcommit". > > e.g. > i did not see this issues with "0 > /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_accounting" I assume "overcommit_accounting" is either a typo for "overcommit_memory", or SLES gives "overcommit_memory" a slightly different name. 0 means overcommit memory (let people allocate more private writable user memory than there is actually ram+swap to back), but throw in a check against really wild allocation requests. 1 omits even that check. > But this happened several times with "2 > /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_accounting" 2 means account for all private writable memory and fail any allocation which would take the system over the edge - the edge being defined roughly by overcommit_ratio * (ram+swap) (I expect there's a divisor needed in there!) i.e. 2 means strict no-overcommit. So what you see fits with what Alan was fixing. Hugh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>