>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Breuer <ptb@it.uc3m.es> writes:
> Please read what I said instead of twisting the words! Get rid of the
> current OOM _behaviour_ is what I said. The 2.0.* behaviour was fine.
> 2.2.* and up seem to indulge in random killing for no reason at all,
> which I put down to false positives from a kill-happy something in the kernel.
AFAIK, the killing behavior is the same between 2.0 and 2.2: who ever
asks for memory at the wrong time gets killed. It's mostly random
(but not quite: a completely idle process should not be killed).
If you see a difference between 2.0 and 2.2 it's not due to the OOM
killer being dumber but probably rather to some other artifact.
One explanation is that 2.0 had more bugs where it would simply
lockup instead of gracefully detecting the OOM situation.
Andrea has done a great job to fix (hopefully) all those cases so
as to avoid those stupid dead locks.
Stefan
-
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 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:23 EST