Unfortunately, we don't. That's why I propose including
my check for out_of_memory().
The OOM killer part can be included later on, probably
as an optional feature (I know people want this, quite
a lot of sysadmins have asked me when it would be put
into the main kernel).
> If we are not OOM and __get_free_pages() return 0, it means that
> it's buggy (at least in _not_ GFP_ATOMIC context).
It can also mean something else, but I think I've explained
this over a dozen times already so I won't waste your time
again...
> The point is that an OOM killer could be _eventually_ a config
> option for 2.2 and it' s a new _feature_ (I don' t go in the details
> if it' s something we want or not in 2.2 here).
I don't think we want it included now, but when 2.2
stabilizes we might want to put it in after all.
> >The only problem is that my patch still needs some cleaning
> >up and I have a math test this friday ;(
>
> I know what does it mean ;-).
Well, my patch seems to work for everybody now. I need to
start working on things like code beautification, sysctl
support and statistics reporting.
> Rik I 100% agree that an OOM killer can be useful, but here I am
> pointing out that this is a totoally different issue.
Not really, with your patch there's a slightly increased
chance of killing a random process when there's still some
swap free. My patch removes the randomness _and_ the unneeded
killing.
Rik.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl |
| Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
-
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/