Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 17:48:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 17:48:24 -0500 Received: from www.wen-online.de ([212.223.88.39]:38156 "EHLO wen-online.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 17:48:18 -0500 Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:47:44 +0100 (CET) From: Mike Galbraith X-X-Sender: To: linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init In-Reply-To: <3ABCE547.DD5E78B9@redhat.com> 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 On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Doug Ledford wrote: > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > General thread comment: > > To those who are griping, and obviously rightfully so, Rik has twice > > stated on this list that he could use some help with VM auto-balancing. > > The responses (visible on this list at least) was rather underwhelming. > > I noted no public exchange of ideas.. nada in fact. > > While my post didn't give an exact formula, I was quite clear on the fact that > the system is allowing the caches to overrun memory and cause oom problems. Yes. A testcase would be good. It's not happening to everybody nor is it happening under all loads. (if it were, it'd be long dead) > I'm more than happy to test patches, and I would even be willing to suggest > some algorithms that might help, but I don't know where to stick them in the > code. Most of the people who have been griping are in a similar position. First step toward killing the critter is to lure him onto open ground. Once there.. well, I've seen some pretty fancy shooting on this list. -Mike - 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/