Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 12:58:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 12:58:11 -0500 Received: from ns0.cobite.com ([208.222.80.10]:43532 "EHLO ns0.cobite.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 12:58:10 -0500 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:07:18 -0500 (EST) From: David Mansfield X-X-Sender: david@admin To: Rik van Riel cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marc-Christian Petersen Subject: Re: oom killer and its superior braindamage in 2.4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1217 Lines: 43 > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, David Mansfield wrote: > > > Rik, any ideas? > > You could try the patch I sent to Marc and linux-kernel > yesterday afternoon ;) > You miss my point completely. The kernel has ALREADY chosen a task to kill. I don't care to adjust the 'badness' function. The kernel has already chosen a bad task. 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? With you patch we have: 1) Kernel goes OOM 2) Kernel picks the worst task to kill using badness() 3) Kernel attempts to kill this task but fails due to some {reason|bug}. 4) Kernel now picks some other task to kill even though the 'baddest' one is allowed to hang out. This is my question, and I don't see how the patch addresses it. David -- /==============================\ | David Mansfield | | lkml@dm.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/