Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler

From: Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@suse.de)
Date: Tue Oct 10 2000 - 09:24:02 EST

Next message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Previous message: Ingo Rohloff: "A patch to loop.c for better cryption support"
In reply to: Helge Hafting: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Next in thread: Helge Hafting: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Reply: Helge Hafting: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 09:06:49AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> If you want init to live - prove that it don't eat too much memory.

I don't see why the machine should be stable only if init is small.
My kernel won't be stable only if init is small since it doesn't cost
anything to handle correctly the big init case.

Andrea
-
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/

Next message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Previous message: Ingo Rohloff: "A patch to loop.c for better cryption support"
In reply to: Helge Hafting: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Next in thread: Helge Hafting: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Reply: Helge Hafting: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:15 EST