Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:04:38 +0200 | From | Harald Koenig <> | Subject | Re: General Question... |
| |
On Mar 30, Alan Cox wrote:
> > zero? I know, it's not SUPPOSED to happen, but saying it did, should the > > kernel halt and die, or try to kill off processes trying to malloc more > > memory, or what? > > It should start killing processes as they allocate stuff. That can have > bad effects if it happens to pick X11 [yes back to that topic again its > another reason for a little kernel side mode switching]
I know this has been discussed before but I don't know the answers or arguments anymore so I have to ask again:
is there any chance for future Linux kernels (2.1 or 2.3) that in such a case kernel might pick _another_ process? maybe the capability bitmap would give a chance to have DONT_KILL_ME_IF_RUNNING_OUT_OF_MEMORY bit which then would allow to look for another (next largest?) process?
I know this won't help if just this process (e.g. Xserver) is leaking memory, but it will keep your X display (or database server or whatever) up running if any other process is leaking (mad user program, netscape, weird physicist, ...;)
Harald -- All SCSI disks will from now on ___ _____ be required to send an email notice 0--,| /OOOOOOO\ 24 hours prior to complete hardware failure! <_/ / /OOOOOOOOOOO\ \ \/OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\ \ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|// Harald Koenig, \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Inst.f.Theoret.Astrophysik // / \\ \ koenig@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de ^^^^^ ^^^^^
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |