From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 08:28:13 +0200 (MEST) From: Jan Engelhardt Subject: Re: signals logged / [RFC] log out-of-virtual-memory events In-Reply-To: <464C9D82.60105@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <464C81B5.8070101@users.sourceforge.net> <464C9D82.60105@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: righiandr@users.sourceforge.net, LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@suse.de List-ID: On May 17 2007 14:22, Rik van Riel wrote: > Andrea Righi wrote: >> I'm looking for a way to keep track of the processes that fail to allocate >> new >> virtual memory. What do you think about the following approach (untested)? > > Looks like an easy way for users to spam syslogd over and > over and over again. > > At the very least, shouldn't this be dependant on print_fatal_signals? Speaking of signals, everytime I get a segfault (or force one with a test program) on x86_64, the kernel prints to dmesg: fail[22278]: segfault at 0000000000000000 rip 00000000004004b8 rsp 00007ffff7ecda50 error 6 I do not see such on i386, so why for x86_64? Jan -- -- 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-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org