From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 23:51:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 23:50:51 -0400 Received: from mail6.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.206]:39431 "EHLO mail6.speakeasy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 23:50:39 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: safemode To: Rik van Riel , David Ford Subject: Re: VM nuisance Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 23:50:50 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3] Cc: In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <20010811035043Z266464-760+17@vger.kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org maybe these are signs that the OOM killer just wasn't ready for 2.4 with the VM that it has. For people hoping to use 2.4 as a server platform, they should have the confidence to know what's going to happen when the OOM situation occurs. If the current OOM handler cant give that confidence then perhaps it should be removed and slated for 2.5. Simple way to beat the flames anyway. On Friday 10 August 2001 22:48, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, David Ford wrote: > > Is there anything measurably useful in any -ac or -pre patches after > > 2.4.7 that helps or fixes the blasted out-of-memory-but-let's-go-fsck > > -ourselves-for-a-few-hours? > > No. The problem is that whenever I change something to > the OOM killer I get flamed. > > Both by the people for whom the OOM killer kicks in too > early and by the people for whom the OOM killer now doesn't > kick in. > > I haven't got the faintest idea how to come up with an OOM > killer which does the right thing for everybody. > > regards, > > Rik > -- > IA64: a worthy successor to i860. > > http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ > > Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)