[cgl_discussion] Re: why strict_memory_overcommit patch?

Randy.Dunlap rddunlap at osdl.org
Fri Sep 27 12:08:54 PDT 2002

On 27 Sep 2002, Robert Love wrote:

| On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 14:54, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| > Why do we have the strict VM overcommit patch in the CGL kernel?
| >
| > What requirement is it for?
| >
| > Or does some other requirement depend on it?
| Back in the TLT days, someone at Intel filed a bug relating to OOM and
| someone else at Intel filed a reply saying "rml has a strict overcommit
| patch that should fix this" - so I merged it.
| I would think its just a general robustness / stability sort of thing.
| The non-deterministic behavior of the OOM killer surely is not ideal for
| a telecom server.

It probably does make sense, but I don't want to see some (other)
patch wxyz thrown in like this is a playground.
(not saying that's what happened here)

Seems to me like it should at least have a bug # tied to it.

| But, no, I do not think it was a specific line item and nothing depends
| on it.


More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list