From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:42:14 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Message-ID: <20001009214214.G19583@athlon.random> References: <20001009210503.C19583@athlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 04:07:32PM -0300 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Ingo Molnar , Byron Stanoszek , Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 04:07:32PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > No. It's only needed if your OOM algorithm is so crappy that > it might end up killing init by mistake. The algorithm you posted on the list in this thread will kill init if on 4Mbyte machine without swap init is large 3 Mbytes and you execute a task that grows over 1M. So I repeat again: for correctness you should either fix the oom algorithm and demonstrate with math that it can't kill init or fix the bug using a magic check. Since it's not going to be possible to proof that an oom algorithm won't kill init (also considering init isn't always /sbin/init) the magic check is going to be the only bugfix possible. 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/