[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 Sunday 23 February 2003 21:18, Rik van Riel wrote:

Hi Rik,

> It'd be interesting to know where these processes are spending
> their CPU time and why they're not catching their signals.
I'll look into it again when I do the next run.

> > Sysrq-i gave me the chance to get out of the OOM killing process and
> > only kernel threads were left + getty's so I was able to log in again.
> Strange, so sysrq-i manages to kill the processes, but the OOM
> killer doesn't kill the processes ?
yep, so it is.

> This is very suspect because the OOM killer uses force_sig in
> the same way the sysrq-i handler does...
indeed. Well, sysrq-i need about 5 seconds to give me my getty back.

Anyway, your patch should go into -BK. Your patch does _not_ introduce this
behaviour, it's present even w/o your patch but your approach makes things
better :)

ciao, Marc
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:0.058 / U:2.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site