> > zero? I know, it's not SUPPOSED to happen, but saying it did, should the
> > kernel halt and die, or try to kill off processes trying to malloc more
> > memory, or what?
>
> It should start killing processes as they allocate stuff. That can have
> bad effects if it happens to pick X11 [yes back to that topic again its
> another reason for a little kernel side mode switching]
Yes... but this is ONE big process (netscape) just continually gobbling
memory without giving it back.
> > and 50 megs of swap. My computer locked hard. Couldn't get in through
> > telnet, either. Is this supposed to happen? Is there a known problem
>
> No that means someone has a bug in the vm code probably too
Had the same problems with 2.0.33... that's the whole reason I tried a
2.1.X kernel... thought it was poor memory management in .33. but same
problems in 1.90. =sigh= Just gotta keep exiting NS periodically to
clean up memory. (Exiting DOES clean up memory properly)
Also, is there a way to get the Magic SysRq key to work in X?
-Sir Woody Hackswell balint@udayton.edu woody@woodynet.siscom.net
(The ArchFool) http://woodynet.siscom.net/woody
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu