Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler

From: David Ford (
Date: Mon Oct 09 2000 - 14:30:20 EST

Then spam the console loudly with printk, but don't destroy the whole machine.
Init should only get killed if it REALLY is taking a lot of memory. On a 4 or 8meg
machine tho, the probability of init getting killed is simply too high for
comfort. I have never ever seen init start consuming memory like this so I'd
rather get spammed on the console a LOT then have my entire machine instantly go

We get enough reports about innocuous messages on the console, I'm sure these would
get reported to LKML as well...and in short order as is usual.


Ingo Molnar wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 04:19:55PM -0400, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
> > > In the OOM killer, shouldn't there be a check for PID 1 just to enforce that
> >
> > Init can't be killed in 2.2.x latest, the same bugfix should be forward
> > ported to 2.4.x.
> I believe we should not special-case init in this case. If the OOM would
> kill init then we *want* to know about it ASAP, because it's either a bug
> in the OOM code or a memory leak in init. Both things are very bad, and
> ignoring the kill would just preserve those bugs artificially.

      "There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are
      virtue and talents", Thomas Jefferson [1742-1826], 3rd US President

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:12 EST