Khimenko Victor writes:
> [chop] Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br) wrote:
>> On the contrary, putting together a solution to this
>> problem is easy.
>
> It's not so. SOME solution is easy enough. But is it right solution ?
> This is unclear. To many peoples ANY solution where ANY process can
> be killed is "not right" -- theonly proper solution will be one where
> you'll get NULL from malloc when there are not enough memory.
...and have a system lock-up when even that isn't enough.
I'd really like to see Rik's OOM kill code in 2.4.xx. It is a bug fix,
with the current bug being that X can get killed.
>> The problem has been that people don't understand the issues involved
>> and start a flamewar as soon as a patch (re)surfaces.
>
> Exactly.
Yep, and those people would be the ones who imagine that there is
possible to avoid killing processes.
(the trouble: recursive code using the stack and kernel allocations)
> Ideal solution will be: solution where
> 1) processes will be NEVER killed.
> 2) if there are not enough memory malloc just return NULL.
> 3) virtual memory is used effectively (that is almost 100% of memory+swap
> can be used for "real data").
No problem. Do not boot Linux.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:20 EST