Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler

[Rik van Riel]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> > > so dns helper is killed first, then netscape. (my idea might not
> > > make sense though.)
> > 
> > It makes some sense, but I don't think OOM is something that
> > occurs often enough to care about it /that/ much...
> 
> i'm trying to handle Andrea's case, the init=/bin/bash
> manual-bootup case, with 4MB RAM and no swap, where the admin
> tries to exec a 2MB process. I think it's a legitimate concern -
> i cannot know in advance whether a freshly started process would
> trigger an OOM or not.

In that case the time running and the cpu time used
factors should give the new process a heavy penalty
compared to init.

(but I'd be curious if somebody actually manages to
trick the OOM killer into killing init ... please
test a bit more to see if this really happens ;))

regards,

Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
       -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000

http://www.conectiva.com/               http://www.surriel.com/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/