Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 10:46:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 10:46:19 -0500 Received: from [195.63.194.11] ([195.63.194.11]:29201 "EHLO mail.stock-world.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 10:46:02 -0500 Message-ID: <3ABE0F32.5255DF30@evision-ventures.com> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 17:30:58 +0200 From: Martin Dalecki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Cox CC: "James A. Sutherland" , Guest section DW , Rik van Riel , "Patrick O'Rourke" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > > > That depends what you mean by "must not". If it's your missile guidance > > system, aircraft autopilot or life support system, the system must not run > > out of memory in the first place. If the system breaks down badly, killing > > init and thus panicking (hence rebooting, if the system is set up that > > way) seems the best approach. > > Ultra reliable systems dont contain memory allocators. There are good reasons > for this but the design trade offs are rather hard to make in a real world > environment I esp. they run on CPU's without a stack or what? - 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/