On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote:
> When I ported your OOM killer to 2.2.x and integrated it into the
> 'reserved root memory' [*] patch, during intensive testing I found two
> cases when init was killed. It happened on low-end machines and when
> OOM killer wasn't triggered so init was killed in the page fault
> handler. The later was also one of the reasons I replaced the "random"
> OOM killer in page fault handler with yours [so there is only one OOM
> killer].
Good idea, we should do this for 2.4. I cannot remember
reading an email from you about this, it's quite possible
I just missed it and didn't answer because I never read
it ...
> Other things that bothered me,
> - niced processes are penalized
This can be considered a bug and should be fixed...
> - trying to kill a task that is permanently in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> will probably deadlock the machine [or the random OOM killer will
> kill the box].
This could indeed be a problem, though I cannot really see any
case where a task would be in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE permanently.
OTOH, a 1GB read() will take a (much) too long time to finish.
Your ideas sound really good, would you have the time to implement
them for 2.4 ?
regards,
Rik
-- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 31 2001 - 21:00:10 EST