Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269457AbUJLFD0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2004 01:03:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269458AbUJLFD0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2004 01:03:26 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]:18424 "EHLO zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269457AbUJLFDZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2004 01:03:25 -0400 Message-ID: <416B6594.5080002@nortelnetworks.com> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:03:16 -0600 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: Chris Friesen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Cox CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [BUG] oom killer not triggering in 2.6.9-rc3 References: <41672D4A.4090200@nortelnetworks.com> <1097503078.31290.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1097503078.31290.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 774 Lines: 19 Alan Cox wrote: > The OOM killer is a heuristic. Sure, but presumably it's a bad thing for a user with no priorities to be able to lock up a machine by running two tasks? I'm not complaining that its killing the wrong thing, I'm complaining that the machine locked up. > Switch the machine to strict accounting > and it'll kill or block memory access correctly. I must be able to run an app that uses over 90% of system memory, and calls fork(). I was under the impression this made strict accounting unfeasable? 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/