Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06001fdabb77f774f0a1@[10.2.0.101]>
In-Reply-To: <3F52199B.5020808@kegel.com>
References: <3F52199B.5020808@kegel.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:08:56 -0700
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Jonathan Lundell <linux@lundell-bros.com>
Subject: Re: Andrea VM changes
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1104
Lines: 24

At 8:51am -0700 8/31/03, Dan Kegel wrote:
>In the test-and-measurement system I'm developing,
>it turned out the sanest thing to do with OOM conditions
>was to consider them user errors, and to handle them
>by dumping memory usage info about processes and slab caches,
>then halt.  It's been very helpful because it turns flaky
>conditions into rock-solid failures.  Too bad this drastic
>approach isn't appropriate for general use.

Likewise in an HA environment, if you've got a standby node 
available, we prefer to fail over on an oom condition or (or an oops, 
for that matter) than to try to continue running in some randomly 
crippled way. The node in question can then reboot and return to 
service as a standby.

Ideally, we'd have a notifier that would be triggered for every 
unanticipated process kill (oom, oops, whatever).
-- 
/Jonathan Lundell.
-
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/