Sujet : Re: Shutdown - 25 Years Later
De : invalid (at) *nospam* invalid.invalid (Richard Kettlewell)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.miscDate : 28. Apr 2025, 20:18:28
Autres entêtes
Organisation : terraraq NNTP server
Message-ID : <wwv7c345c3f.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
User-Agent : Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
John Ames <
commodorejohn@gmail.com> writes:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
Fair enough. As long as those solutions work..
Or you could, you know, simply configure your kernel to say “no,
sorry, there’s not enough RAM for that”.
>
The whole idea of *not* doing that - pretending that resources are
infinite and arbitrarily murdering on the sly to maintain the fiction
- is utterly baffling to me. I'm curious what the rationale is behind
it.
The choice is between memory allocation failing (generally leading to
processes existing or not even starting in the first place) when there
is plenty left due to pessimistic book-keeping, or killing processes
only when you genuinely run out of memory.
The default is overcommit (i.e. the latter). It’s just a default, so if
you don’t like it, you can disable it.
-- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/