On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:26:22PM +0000, James A. Sutherland wrote: > > Clearly, Linux cannot be reliable if any process can be killed > > at any moment. > > What on earth did you expect to happen when the process exceeded the > machine's capabilities? Using more than all the resources fails. There > isn't an alternative. That is the wrong way to phrase these things. Large processes usually do not have a definite set of needed resources. They can use lots of memory for buffers and cache and hash and be a bit faster, or use much less and be a bit slower. Linux first promises a lot of memory, but then fails to deliver, without returning any error to the program. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [PATCH] OOM handling Kevin Buhr
- Re: [PATCH] OOM handling Jonathan Morton
- Re: [PATCH] OOM handling Matthew Chappee
- Re: [PATCH] OOM handling Ingo Oeser
- Re: [PATCH] OOM handling Jasper Spaans
- Re: [PATCH] OOM handling Michael Peddemors
- Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Martin Dalecki
- Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing ... Stephen Satchell
- [PATCH] non-overcommit memory, i... Jonathan Morton
- Re: [PATCH] non-overcommit memor... Pavel Machek
- Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Guest section DW
- Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Doug Ledford
- Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Kurt Garloff
- Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Sandy Harris
- Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Guest section DW
- Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Patrick O'Rourke
- Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Philipp Rumpf
- Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init James A. Sutherland
- Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Szabolcs Szakacsits
- Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Rik van Riel
- RE: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Juha Saarinen