> Its fixable to run on 8. Right now as an ordinary user I can destroy it on
> 32Mb and I suspect given a bit more work on 64Mb
while were on the topic, I compared 2.1.109ac2 and 2.0.34 for the no-more
memory situation, I ran the attached piece of code, definining "SIZE" to
be as much as possible to fill up almost all remaining VM so that there's
almost no swap left, I then tried starting netscape-4.05 (all I had
running was Xserver+xterm no WM). 2.1.109 when into horrible swapping, a
constant rythm of on-off disk activity that never ends, I waited
15 minutes then hit "the" button, there were no messages in the logs....
Under 2.0.34, after about 15secs of disk activity, nescape
exited and printed out "Error: cannot perform malloc". So 2.0.34 does
"the right thing", and it seems that 2.1.109 does not in this case. I'm
running on an intel-p133, 64megs RAM, 80meg swap partition, RH-5.0. I'm
willing to try out more tests tonight.
Marc Heckmann
void main()
{
int i;
int * table = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int) * SIZE);
for(i = 0 ; i < SIZE ; i++) table[i] = i;
while(1);
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html