lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] strict VM overcommit
Hi,

On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> What about the many hundred counter-examples

These cases are different.

> (e.g. umount gives EBUSY,

Simply because you _will_ lose data if you umount a device that's being
scribbled on.

> kill can't kill processes in uninterruptible sleep

Because the uninterruptible sleep means the process is waiting for data.
If you destroy the process and kill an interrupt handler, you _will_
crash.

> , etc, etc)? Why the system knows better then admin in these cases? Why
> just don't destroy the data, crash the system as you suggest in your
> case?

This case is different. If you swapoff /dev/scsi/path/to/dead/disk, your
system will likely live on. Possibly you'll have some tasks killed, but
we're well up.

Alan was referring to cases where it's unlikely that we die of it, you're
referring to cases where it's clear that the system won't get through.

Regards,
Thunder
--
(Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode)
------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$
N--- o? K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G
e++++ h* r--- y-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.422 / U:1.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site