From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:09:52 +1100 From: john slee Subject: Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Message-ID: <20001010200952.A661@higherplane.net> References: 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 06:34:29PM -0300 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Ingo Molnar , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 06:34:29PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > > Would this complexity /really/ be worth it for the twice-yearly OOM > > > situation? > > > > the only reason i suggested this was the init=/bin/bash, 4MB > > RAM, no swap emergency-bootup case. We must not kill init in > > that case - if the current code doesnt then great and none of > > this is needed. perhaps a boot time option oom=0 ? since oom is such a rare case, this wouldn't impact normal usage... -- john slee -- 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/