On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:17:16PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:10:56PM +0100, Jan Harkes wrote:
> > btw. There definitely is a network receive buffer leak somewhere in
> > either the 3c905C path or higher up in the network layers (2.4.0 or
> > 2.4.1). The normal path does
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:10:56PM +0100, Jan Harkes wrote:
> btw. There definitely is a network receive buffer leak somewhere in
> either the 3c905C path or higher up in the network layers (2.4.0 or
> 2.4.1). The normal path does not leak anything.
What do you mean with "normal path" ?
And ar
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 10:13:55AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Personally I think the OOM killer itself is fine. I think there are
> problems elsewhere which are triggering the OOM killer when it should
> not be triggered, ie. a leak like Doug Ledford was reporting.
>
> I definitely see heavier
3 matches
Mail list logo