From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes From: Robert Love In-Reply-To: <20030913174825.GB7404@mail.jlokier.co.uk> References: <200309120219.h8C2JANc004514@penguin.co.intel.com> <20030913174825.GB7404@mail.jlokier.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1063476152.24473.30.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:52:56 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Jamie Lokier Cc: rusty@linux.co.intel.com, riel@conectiva.com.br, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 13:48, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Also, when the OOM condition is triggered I'd like the system to > reboot, but first try for a short while to unmount filesystems cleanly. > > Any chance of those things? I like all of these ideas. One thing to keep in mind is that during a real OOM condition, we cannot allocate _any_ memory. None. Zilch. And that makes some things very hard. When we start getting into things such as complicated policies that kill nonessential services first, et cetera... there comes a time where a lot of communication is needed (probably with user-space). Hard to do that with no memory. I do like all of this, however, and want to see some different OOM killers. Robert Love -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org