lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: oom killer and its superior braindamage in 2.4
Date
On Monday 24 February 2003 10:13, Mikael Starvik wrote:

Hi Mikael,

> Does everyone agree that killing a process is always the best approach
> to resolve an OOM? If the OOM is caused by e.g. a growing tmpfs or
> memory leaks in the kernel it won't help much to kill processes that
> may respawn.
Well, I don't agree that it's always the best approach. Other bad things, you
metioned it, can happen.

> Would it be useful if it was possible to register another oom-handler?
> Some architectures could then choose to e.g. reboot the system instead.
I'd like to see _an option_ (read: not default but an option, e.g. boot
parameter) that will reboot the machine after $specified_time if an OOM
killing action does not stop.

ciao, Marc


-
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 13:33    [W:0.042 / U:6.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site