From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:24:12 +0100 From: Philipp Rumpf Subject: Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Message-ID: <20001010162412.E3386@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <20001010042941.C3386@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:06:07PM -0300 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Ingo Molnar , Byron Stanoszek , Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:06:07PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Philipp Rumpf wrote: > > > > 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 ;) > > > > But wouldn't a watchdog daemon which doesn't allocate any memory > > still get run ? > > Indeed, it would. It would also /prevent/ the system > from automatically rebooting itself into a usable state ;) So it's not dead in the "oh, it'll be back in 30 seconds" sense. So our behaviour is broken (more so than random process killing). > > You care about getting an automatic reboot. So you need to be sure the > > watchdog daemon gets killed first or you panic() after some time. > > echo 30 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic that's what I said. we need to be sure to _get_ a panic() though. -- 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/