Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:56:54 -0500 (EST) | From | Woodstock <> | Subject | Re: General Question... |
| |
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, 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]
Yes... but this is ONE big process (netscape) just continually gobbling memory without giving it back.
> > and 50 megs of swap. My computer locked hard. Couldn't get in through > > telnet, either. Is this supposed to happen? Is there a known problem > > No that means someone has a bug in the vm code probably too
Had the same problems with 2.0.33... that's the whole reason I tried a 2.1.X kernel... thought it was poor memory management in .33. but same problems in 1.90. =sigh= Just gotta keep exiting NS periodically to clean up memory. (Exiting DOES clean up memory properly)
Also, is there a way to get the Magic SysRq key to work in X?
-Sir Woody Hackswell balint@udayton.edu woody@woodynet.siscom.net (The ArchFool) http://woodynet.siscom.net/woody
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |