Re: Memory overcommit

[Hugh Dickins]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> It is a guess in the sense to guarantee no ENOMEM it has to take into
> account the worst possible case, that is all shared lib MAP_PRIVATE
> mappings are cowed, which is very far from reality.

A MAP_PRIVATE area is only counted into Committed_AS when it is or
has in the past been PROT_WRITE.  I think it's up to the ELF header
of the shared library whether a section is PROT_WRITE or not; but it
looks like many are not, so Committed_AS should be (a little) nearer
reality than you fear.

Though we do account for Committed_AS, even while allowing overcommit,
we do not at present account for Committed_AS per mm.  Seeing David
and KAMEZAWA-san debating over total_vm versus rss versus anon_rss,
I wonder whether such a "commit" count might be a better measure for
OOM choices (but shmem is as usual awkward: though accounted just once
in Committed_AS, it would probably have to be accounted to every mm
that maps it).  Just an idea to throw into the mix.

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