From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <39E22E80.75819894@kalifornia.com> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 13:45:53 -0700 From: David Ford Reply-To: david+validemail@kalifornia.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: mingo@elte.hu, Andrea Arcangeli , Byron Stanoszek , Linus Torvalds , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Rik van Riel wrote: > > How about SIGTERM a bit before SIGKILL then re-evaluate the OOM > > N usecs later? > > And run the risk of having to kill /another/ process as well ? > > I really don't know if that would be a wise thing to do > (but feel free to do some tests to see if your idea would > work ... I'd love to hear some test results with your idea). I was thinking (dangerous) about an urgent v.s. critical OOM. urgent could trigger a SIGTERM which would give advance notice to the offending process. I don't think we have a signal method of notifying processes when resources are critically low, feel free to correct me. Is there a signal that -might- be used for this? -d -- "There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents", Thomas Jefferson [1742-1826], 3rd US President -- 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/