[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: oom killer and its superior braindamage in 2.4
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, David Mansfield wrote:

> If you read my post, the bug is that the kernel CANNOT kill that
> process? Why? If it's really a bad process, shouldn't it be the one
> that gets killed?

> This is my question, and I don't see how the patch addresses it.

And you won't see one, either. You cannot change the
semantics of uninterruptible sleep, nor can the OOM
killer change other device driver things.

This means the OOM killer has little choice but to
"hope for the best" and pick another process if the
first process chosen can't exit.

If you think you can fix all drivers to work fine
when tasks suddenly disappear, I guess you might
wnat to create such a patch ...


Engineers don't grow up, they grow sideways.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.057 / U:1.900 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site