shrinking memory consumptions

[Jens Axboe]

On Sun, Apr 01 2007, Jim Gettys wrote:
> There are much bigger savings to be had.  If you do a "ps", you'll see
> we are running not one, but two copies of bash just to start the X
> server.

I'm sure there is, but being a kernel person, I tend to look at things
from that end. And the memory pools there are most likely the biggest
waste of memory there. The memory also isn't swappable, though that
doesn't matter much here.

> In any case, remember that OOM is a reality we have to face on our
> machine, so I'd rather handle it gracefully than have the system lock
> up.  So some conservatism is in order here.

If you are referring to the patch in question, functionally there will
be no difference. It's merely fixing a misguided attempt at "optimizing"
a slow path.

I'd wager a guess that the oom killer is going to need some work

-- 
Jens Axboe