Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 05:20:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 05:20:44 -0500 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:6843 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 05:20:32 -0500 Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:18:48 +0100 (MET) From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Message-Id: To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, paul@jakma.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From paul@jakma.org Sat Mar 24 03:00:17 2001 > No, ulimit does not work. (But it helps a little.) no, not perfect, i very much agree. but in daily usage it reduces chance of OOM to close to 0. No. How would you use it? Compute individual limits for each process? One typically has a few very large processes that may easily take most of memory, and lots of small processes. With a low ulimit these large processes do not run. With a large ulimit it does not help against OOM. The job of accounting what is available belongs to the system, not the user. Note that ulimit does not limit the sum of your processes, it limits each individual process. Andries - 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/