From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: the new VMt Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:09:31 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <20000925192114.Q2615@redhat.com> from "Stephen C. Tweedie" at Sep 25, 2000 07:21:14 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Cc: Alan Cox , mingo@elte.hu, Andrea Arcangeli , Marcelo Tosatti , Linus Torvalds , Rik van Riel , Roger Larsson , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > Indeed. But we wont fail the kmalloc with a NULL return > > Isn't that the preferred behaviour, though? If we are completely out > of VM on a no-swap machine, we should be killing one of the existing > processes rather than preventing any progress and keeping all of the > old tasks alive but deadlocked. Unless Im missing something we wont kill any task in that condition - even a SIGKILL will make no odds as everyone is asleep in kmalloc -- 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/