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

From: Helge Hafting (
Date: Tue Oct 10 2000 - 02:06:49 EST

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:42:26PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > ignoring the kill would just preserve those bugs artificially.
> If the oom killer kills a thing like init by mistake or init has a memleak
> you'll notice both problems regardless of having a magic for init in a _very_
> slow path so I don't buy your point.
> .
> For corretness init must not be killed ever, period.
> So you have two choices:
> o math proof that the current algorithm without the magic can't end
> killing init (and I should be able to proof the other way around
> instead)
> o have a magic check for init
> So the magic is _strictly_ necessary at the moment.

A well-written init will be saved by being the oldest process around.
A memory-leaking init _will_ be killed even whith your magic test,
when the kernel eventually gets stuck OOM and init is the only
process left (all the other have been OOM-killed before.)
A deadlocked kernel don't schedule any processes, so they are all dead.

If you want init to live - prove that it don't eat too much memory.

Helge Hafting
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 - 21:00:14 EST