Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:05:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:05:14 -0500 Received: from 5-077.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br ([200.193.163.77]:16348 "EHLO 5-077.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:05:12 -0500 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:14:47 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel To: David Mansfield 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: References: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org 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: 1049 Lines: 31 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, David Mansfield wrote: > 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. This means the OOM killer has little choice but to "hope for the best" and pick another process if the first process chosen can't exit. If you think you can fix all drivers to work fine when tasks suddenly disappear, I guess you might wnat to create such a patch ... regards, Rik -- Engineers don't grow up, they grow sideways. http://www.surriel.com/ http://kernelnewbies.org/ - 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/