Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:34:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:34:08 -0500 Received: from freesurfmta03.sunrise.ch ([194.230.0.32]:8671 "EHLO freesurfmail.sunrise.ch") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:33:52 -0500 From: "Christian Bodmer" Organization: AntiSpam Inc. To: Rik van Riel Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 19:32:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init CC: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3ABA534D.2392.3D7585@localhost> In-Reply-To: <4605B269DB001E4299157DD1569079D2809930@EXCHANGE03.plaza.ds.adp.com> In-Reply-To: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I can't say I understand the whole MM system, however the random killing of processes seems like a rather unfortunate solution to the problem. If someone has a spare minute, maybe they could explain to me why running out of free memory in kswapd results in a deadlock situation. That aside, would it be an improvement to define another process flag (PF_OOMPRESERVE) that would declare a process as undesirable to be killed in an OOM situation, so that the user has at least some control over what gets killed first or last respectively. Only when select_bad_process() runs out of unflagged processes will it then proceed to kill the processes with this new flag. Just an idea, I am pretty sure there's tons of reasons why not to introduce a new per process flag. /Cheers Chris - 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/