Subject: Re: overcommit
To: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
From: R. C. Dowdeswell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/21/2000 11:02:21
On 953586655 seconds since the Beginning of the UNIX epoch
Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
>email@example.com (Chris G. Demetriou) writes:
>> Michael Richardson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > For the curious, linux-kernel is having a debate on overcommit.
>> > http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0003.2/0003.html
>> *chuckle* Of course, we all individually know what the one true right
>> answer is... (but damned if we could agree as a group... 8-)
>This statement, of course, has prompted several people (so far 8-) to
>ask me what The One True Right Answer (or at least, my answer) is.
I think that there would be some value to a semi-overcommit strategy
whereby pages that are COW are assigned a (dynamic) `likelihood'
of being copied, and that value is used to generate a likely maximum
of memory usage which will not be exceeded. This would allow
typical system use to overcommit a little, but in general not run
out. I would propose that this would replace a strict overcommit
strategy, and a non-overcommit would be provided.
== Roland Dowdeswell http://www.Imrryr.ORG/~elric/ ==
== The Unofficial NetBSD Web Pages http://www.Imrryr.ORG/NetBSD/ ==
== The NetBSD Project http://www.NetBSD.ORG/ ==