Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:12:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:12:10 -0500 Received: from ns0.cobite.com ([208.222.80.10]:37645 "EHLO ns0.cobite.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:12:08 -0500 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:22:11 -0500 (EST) From: David Mansfield X-X-Sender: david@admin To: Rik van Riel cc: David Mansfield , , 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: 1053 Lines: 33 > > > 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/