On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:19:07 +0200
Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:12:13PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> > Nick,
> >
> > AFAICS, 1 page allocation which is done in page fault handler
> > can fail in the only case - OOM kills current, so if we failed
> > we should have TIF_MEMDIE and just kill current.
> > Selecting another process for killing if page fault fails means
> > taking another victim with the one being already killed.
> >
>
> Hi Kirill,
>
> I don't quite understand you.
Kirill is claiming that the only occasion on which a pagefault handler would
get an oom is when it killed itself in the oom handler.
> If the page allocation fails in the
> fault handler, we don't want to kill current if it is marked as
> OOM_DISABLE or sysctl_panic_on_oom is set... imagine a critical
> service in a failover system.
>
> It should be quite likely for another process to be kiled and
> provide enough memory to keep the system running. Presuming you
> have faith in the concept of the OOM killer ;)
I'm a bit wobbly about this one. Some before-and-after testing results
would help things along..
-
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/
[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]
