From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:18:40 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Message-ID: <20001009221840.K19583@athlon.random> References: <20001009214214.G19583@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 05:06:48PM -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 05:06:48PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > 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. > > This sounds suspiciously like the description of a DEAD system ;) The system will be DEAD only when your current algorithm will kill init. 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/