Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:59:47 +0100 | From | "J.A. Sutherland" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler |
| |
--On 09 October 2000, 17:40 -0300 Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, James Sutherland wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: >> > >> > > > so dns helper is killed first, then netscape. (my idea might not >> > > > make sense though.) >> > > >> > > It makes some sense, but I don't think OOM is something that >> > > occurs often enough to care about it /that/ much... >> > >> > i'm trying to handle Andrea's case, the init=/bin/bash manual-bootup >> > case, with 4MB RAM and no swap, where the admin tries to exec a 2MB >> > process. I think it's a legitimate concern - i cannot know in advance >> > whether a freshly started process would trigger an OOM or not. >> >> Shouldn't the runtime factor handle this, making sure the new >> process is killed? (Maybe not if you're almost OOM right from >> the word go, and run this process straight off... Hrm.) > > It should. > > Also, the example is a tad unrealistic since init seems to be > around 70 kB in size on my systems ;)
In extreme cases, though, you could arrange things so the machine only has 100K of RAM when it loads init, at which point init tries running, say, rc.sysinit - and everything goes bang. Of course, a machine like that won't be very much use anyway...
More realistically, though, I could be running with something like init=/bin/sash - does your statically linked sash binary fit in 70K? :-)
James. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |