From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:24:12 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: the new VM Message-ID: <20000925172412.A25814@athlon.random> References: <20000925170113.S22882@athlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from mingo@elte.hu on Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 05:10:43PM +0200 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Linus Torvalds , Rik van Riel , Roger Larsson , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 05:10:43PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > a SIGKILL? i agree with the 2.2 solution - first a soft signal, and if > it's being ignored then a SIGKILL. Actually we do the soft signal try (SIGTERM) only if the task was running with iopl privilegies (and that means on alpha and other archs where there isn't the iopl we send a SIGKILL to X immediatly). Extending it to all tasks looked a bit riskious solution because then we would even less probability to kill the right task since all tasks would run oom while the first is put to sleep for a while. With X we really prefer to kill another task than screwup the console instead (even when X is the real hog, and X can be made the real hog by any tasks that allocates huge xshm). Kray reproduces this easily. > > But my question isn't what you do when you're OOM, but is _how_ do you > > notice that you're OOM? > > good question :-) :)) > i think the GFP_USER case should do the oom logic within __alloc_pages(), What's the difference of implementing the logic outside alloc_pages? Putting the logic inside looks not clean design to me. Andrea -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/