Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:42:26PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > ignoring the kill would just preserve those bugs artificially.
>
> If the oom killer kills a thing like init by mistake or init has a memleak
> you'll notice both problems regardless of having a magic for init in a _very_
> slow path so I don't buy your point.
> .
> For corretness init must not be killed ever, period.
>
> So you have two choices:
>
> o math proof that the current algorithm without the magic can't end
> killing init (and I should be able to proof the other way around
> instead)
>
> o have a magic check for init
>
> So the magic is _strictly_ necessary at the moment.
A well-written init will be saved by being the oldest process around.
A memory-leaking init _will_ be killed even whith your magic test,
when the kernel eventually gets stuck OOM and init is the only
process left (all the other have been OOM-killed before.)
A deadlocked kernel don't schedule any processes, so they are all dead.
If you want init to live - prove that it don't eat too much memory.
Helge Hafting
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:14 EST