On 29.01.2015 23:11, Andrew Shewmaker wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:51:27PM +0300, Roman Gushchin wrote:
Shared file pages are never accounted in memory overcommit code,
so it isn't reasonable to count them in a code that limits the
maximal size of a process in OVERCOMMIT_NONE mode.
If a
On 29.01.2015 23:11, Andrew Shewmaker wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:51:27PM +0300, Roman Gushchin wrote:
Shared file pages are never accounted in memory overcommit code,
so it isn't reasonable to count them in a code that limits the
maximal size of a process in OVERCOMMIT_NONE mode.
If a
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:51:27PM +0300, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Shared file pages are never accounted in memory overcommit code,
> so it isn't reasonable to count them in a code that limits the
> maximal size of a process in OVERCOMMIT_NONE mode.
>
> If a process has few large file mappings,
Shared file pages are never accounted in memory overcommit code,
so it isn't reasonable to count them in a code that limits the
maximal size of a process in OVERCOMMIT_NONE mode.
If a process has few large file mappings, the consequent attempts
to allocate anonymous memory may unexpectedly fail
Shared file pages are never accounted in memory overcommit code,
so it isn't reasonable to count them in a code that limits the
maximal size of a process in OVERCOMMIT_NONE mode.
If a process has few large file mappings, the consequent attempts
to allocate anonymous memory may unexpectedly fail
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:51:27PM +0300, Roman Gushchin wrote:
Shared file pages are never accounted in memory overcommit code,
so it isn't reasonable to count them in a code that limits the
maximal size of a process in OVERCOMMIT_NONE mode.
If a process has few large file mappings, the
6 matches
Mail list logo