Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 18:42:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 18:42:12 -0500 Received: from balzac.cybercable.fr ([212.198.0.198]:61553 "HELO balzac.cybercable.fr") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 18:42:05 -0500 Message-ID: <00d801c0b4bb$e7a04be0$0201a8c0@cybercable.fr> From: "Benoit Garnier" To: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 00:41:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote : > But if you start > to think you get the conclusion that process killing can't be avoided if > you want the system keep running. What's the point in keeping the OS running if the applications are silently killed? If your box is running for example a mail server, and it appears that another process is juste eating the free memory, do you really want to kill the mail server, just because it's the main process and consuming more memory and CPU than others? Well, fine, your OS is up, but your application is not here anymore. I just think there's no general solution, users must have the chance to choose processes not to be killed, or malloc() returning errors. ---- Beno?t GARNIER - 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/