Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler

From: john slee (indigoid@higherplane.net)
Date: Tue Oct 10 2000 - 04:09:52 EST

Next message: Markus Pfeiffer: "Re: Incorrect UDMA timing on VIA vt82c596b"
Previous message: Michael Westermann: "[PATCH] interface for pc-keyb extetion"
In reply to: Rik van Riel: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Next in thread: Rik van Riel: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 06:34:29PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > Would this complexity /really/ be worth it for the twice-yearly OOM
> > > situation?
> >
> > the only reason i suggested this was the init=/bin/bash, 4MB
> > RAM, no swap emergency-bootup case. We must not kill init in
> > that case - if the current code doesnt then great and none of
> > this is needed.

perhaps a boot time option oom=0 ? since oom is such a rare case, this
wouldn't impact normal usage...

-- 
john slee <indigoid@higherplane.net>
-
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/

Next message: Markus Pfeiffer: "Re: Incorrect UDMA timing on VIA vt82c596b"
Previous message: Michael Westermann: "[PATCH] interface for pc-keyb extetion"
In reply to: Rik van Riel: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Next in thread: Rik van Riel: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:15 EST