lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.093 / U:3.620 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site