I tested this patch. It worked well.
So, I fixed its description.
Please apply.
--
The current panic_on_oom may not work if there is a process using
cpusets/mempolicy, because other nodes' memory may remain.
But some people want failover by panic ASAP even if they are used.
This patch
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 01:28:16PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> Ok. This is take 2.
> Thanks for your comment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yasunori Goto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Looks good. Signed-off-by: Benjamin LaHaise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-ben
--
"Time is of no importance, Mr. President,
> > > read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > >
> > > + if (sysctl_panic_on_oom == 2)
> > > + panic("out of memory. Compulsory panic_on_oom is selected.\n");
> > > +
> >
> > Wouldn't it be safer to put the panic before the read_lock()?
>
> I agree. Otherwise the patch seem to be okay.
Ok. Th
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 08:43:56PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> >
> > The current panic_on_oom may not work if there is a process using
> > cpusets/mempolicy, because other nodes' memory may still free.
> > But some people want failover by panic AS
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 08:43:56PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
>
> The current panic_on_oom may not work if there is a process using
> cpusets/mempolicy, because other nodes' memory may still free.
> But some people want failover by panic ASAP even if they are used.
> This patch makes new setting
5 matches
Mail list logo