lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [9]   [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
Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 04:07:32PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > No. It's only needed if your OOM algorithm is so crappy that
> > > it might end up killing init by mistake.
> >
> > 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 ;)
>
> (in which case you simply don't care if init is being killed or not)

Not if "init" is a particular program running on a router floppy for
example. The system may be designed to be a router and the userland
monitor/control program is the only thing that runs and consumes 90% of the
memory. If a forked or spawned process starts up with high CPU that just
tips it over the OOM edge, we don't really want to kill init even if it's
taking "all" the memory and or "all" the cpu.


> --
> "There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are
> virtue and talents", Thomas Jefferson [1742-1826], 3rd US President

-
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:0.150 / U:5.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site