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

[David Ford]

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 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/