From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:21:43 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: the new VMt Message-ID: <20000925202143.U2615@redhat.com> References: <20000925192114.Q2615@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 08:09:31PM +0100 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Alan Cox Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , mingo@elte.hu, Andrea Arcangeli , Marcelo Tosatti , Linus Torvalds , Rik van Riel , Roger Larsson , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 08:09:31PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Indeed. But we wont fail the kmalloc with a NULL return > > > > Isn't that the preferred behaviour, though? If we are completely out > > of VM on a no-swap machine, we should be killing one of the existing > > processes rather than preventing any progress and keeping all of the > > old tasks alive but deadlocked. > > Unless Im missing something we wont kill any task in that condition - even > a SIGKILL will make no odds as everyone is asleep in kmalloc Right. Eeek. -- 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/