Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:30:51 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler |
| |
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Philipp Rumpf wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:06:07PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Philipp Rumpf wrote: > > > > > The algorithm you posted on the list in this thread will kill > > > > > init if on 4Mbyte machine without swap init is large 3 Mbytes > > > > > and you execute a task that grows over 1M. > > > > > > > > This sounds suspiciously like the description of a DEAD system ;) > > > > > > But wouldn't a watchdog daemon which doesn't allocate any memory > > > still get run ? > > > > Indeed, it would. It would also /prevent/ the system > > from automatically rebooting itself into a usable state ;) > > So it's not dead in the "oh, it'll be back in 30 seconds" sense. > So our behaviour is broken (more so than random process > killing).
*nod*
Not killing init when we "should" definately prevents embedded systems from auto-rebooting when they should do so.
(OTOH, I don't think embedded systems will run into this OOM issue too much)
> > > You care about getting an automatic reboot. So you need to be sure the > > > watchdog daemon gets killed first or you panic() after some time. > > > > echo 30 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic > > that's what I said. we need to be sure to _get_ a panic() though.
I believe the kernel automatically panic()s when init dies ... from kernel/exit.c::do_exit()
if (tsk->pid == 1) panic("Attempted to kill init!");
[which will make our system auto-reboot and be back on its feet in a healty state again soon]
regards,
Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
- 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/
|  |