Re: tmpfs and the OOM killer

> > 0 - try and spot obviously dumb allocations
> > 1 - anything goes
> > 2 - strictly control resource commit
> 
>   I deduce that a fail-safe application must scanf overcommit_memory, warn 
> the user and waitpid.

If you are building a fail safe system you need to look a bit beyond out
of memory handling settings - power supplies, failover, fault tolerance
requirements, error detection (eg ECC ram), raid arrays over
non-electrically conductive links etc.

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: tmpfs and the OOM killer
    • From: Pedro <[email protected]>

• References:
  • tmpfs and the OOM killer
    • From: Pedro <[email protected]>
  • Re: tmpfs and the OOM killer
    • From: Pedro <[email protected]>
  • Re: tmpfs and the OOM killer
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • Re: tmpfs and the OOM killer
    • From: Pedro <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: If not readdir() then what?
• Next by Date: [AppArmor 03/41] Remove redundant check from proc_sys_setattr()
• Previous by thread: Re: tmpfs and the OOM killer
• Next by thread: Re: tmpfs and the OOM killer
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]