On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Philipp Rumpf wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:06:07PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Philipp Rumpf wrote:
> > > > > The algorithm you posted on the list in this thread will kill
> > > > > init if on 4Mbyte machine without swap init is large 3 Mbytes
> > > > > and you execute a task that grows over 1M.
> > > >
> > > > This sounds suspiciously like the description of a DEAD system ;)
> > >
> > > But wouldn't a watchdog daemon which doesn't allocate any memory
> > > still get run ?
> >
> > Indeed, it would. It would also /prevent/ the system
> > from automatically rebooting itself into a usable state ;)
>
> So it's not dead in the "oh, it'll be back in 30 seconds" sense.
> So our behaviour is broken (more so than random process
> killing).
*nod*
Not killing init when we "should" definately prevents
embedded systems from auto-rebooting when they should
do so.
(OTOH, I don't think embedded systems will run into
this OOM issue too much)
> > > You care about getting an automatic reboot. So you need to be sure the
> > > watchdog daemon gets killed first or you panic() after some time.
> >
> > echo 30 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic
>
> that's what I said. we need to be sure to _get_ a panic() though.
I believe the kernel automatically panic()s when init
dies ... from kernel/exit.c::do_exit()
if (tsk->pid == 1)
panic("Attempted to kill init!");
[which will make our system auto-reboot and be back on its feet
in a healty state again soon]
regards,
Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:15 EST