> > Out of interest:
> > How is assured that it's impossible to OOM when the amount of memory
> > shrinks?
> > IOW:
> > - allocate very much memory
> > - "swapoff -a"
> Well, seriously: don't do that.
> But `swapoff' will not succeed if there is not enough swap or physical
> memory to move the pages to... if it does succeed, then there is enough
> storage elsewhere. At that point, you are not OOM but you may now have
> more address space allocated than the strict accounting would typically
> allow - thus no allocations will succeed so you should not be able to
"thus no allocations will succeed" seems to be a synonymous for "the
machine is more or less dead"?
And this might be a real problem:
If you have a xsession with many open programs and leave it with an xlock
over night it's quite usual that all your applications are swapped out the
next morning. A convenient way to get all your applications swapped in
again is a "swapoff -a; swapon -a". You might argue that this is "wrong"
but it's as far as I know the best solution to get all your applications
swapped in again (and I know several people doing it this way).
If "no allocations will succeed" the first command that will fail is the
> Robert Love
You only think this is a free country. Like the US the UK spends a lot of time explaining its a free country because its a police state. Alan Cox
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/