Re: Terminate process that fails on a constrained allocation

On Wednesday 08 February 2006 22:03, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > I don't think you really want to open a  full scale "is the oom killer needed"
> > thread. Check the archives - there have been some going on for months.
> > 
> > But I think we can agree that together with mbind the oom killer is pretty
> > useless, can't we?
> 
> Excellent points.
> 
> I approve this patch.

I think it should be put into 2.6.16. Andrew?

I had the small objection about adding static noinline, but it's really not important
and the patch can be used as it.

-Andi


-
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/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Terminate process that fails on a constrained allocation
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

References:
- Terminate process that fails on a constrained allocation
  - From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: Terminate process that fails on a constrained allocation
  - From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: Terminate process that fails on a constrained allocation
  - From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
Next by Date: Re: [2.6 patch] let IA64_GENERIC select more stuff
Previous by thread: Re: Terminate process that fails on a constrained allocation
Next by thread: Re: Terminate process that fails on a constrained allocation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]