On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:33:16AM +0100, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> "A month of sundays ago Rik van Riel wrote:"
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> > > > For the time being, though, the simple "kill the most likely suspect"
> > > > patch should be a pretty good approximation.
> > >
> > > Nope. It isn't. It's unacceptable in practice.
> > >
> > > I run labs. The lab machines have to have defenses against
> > > _themselves_.
> > >
> > > Even so, I get reports every couple of days from machines that
> > > have obviously killed themselves.
> >
> > You don't run the OOM killer. You haven't tried it.
>
> That's true. I run "standard" kernels, and they have _an_ OOM killer
> that seems to be random! Whether it's _the_ OOM killer or not, I don't
> know how to say.
They don't. You're OOM, processes page fault and they die. That means syslogd,
inetd, sshd and such. Eventually enough procs get destroyed and pages are
recovered.
-- Carlos Morgado - chbm(at)chbm(dot)nu - http://chbm.nu/ -- gpgkey: 0x1FC57F0A http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ FP:0A27 35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A With the birds I'll share this lonely view. %- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:17 EST