Re: oom killer and its superior braindamage in 2.4

From: David Mansfield (david@cobite.com)
Date: Sun Feb 23 2003 - 15:22:11 EST


>
> > If you read my post, the bug is that the kernel CANNOT kill that
> > process? Why? If it's really a bad process, shouldn't it be the one
> > that gets killed?
>
> > This is my question, and I don't see how the patch addresses it.
>
> And you won't see one, either. You cannot change the
> semantics of uninterruptible sleep, nor can the OOM
> killer change other device driver things.

So you're saying that a process can stay in the D state, without ever
getting enough resources to complete a single Uninteruptible wait, for
hours at a time?

Ok. Now I understand your patch. Thanks for the info.

You should push your patch to Marcelo.

Thanks,
David

-- 
/==============================\
| David Mansfield              |
| david@cobite.com             |
\==============================/

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:39 EST