Re: why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?

From: Ingo Oeser (ingo.oeser@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de)
Date: Sat Oct 14 2000 - 04:31:34 EST

Next message: André Dahlqvist: "Re: big ECN push"
Previous message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: mapping user space buffer to kernel address space"
In reply to: Chris Swiedler: "why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:01:56AM -0400, Chris Swiedler wrote:
> occasionally-used code which could be replaced? Something like Rik's OOM
> killer comes to mind, except that obviously if you're out of memory you're
> not going to be able to load a new executable.

But you can load a module before, "MOD_INC_USE_COUNT;" it and
install a new oom_killer (or better: OOM-Handler) that suits your
needs.

You can even install one, which restores old behavior (just
panic()) to be backward-BUG-compatible ;-)

All you need, is to apply my patch[1]. It applies cleanly against
test10-pre1 an test10-pre2.

I'll soon provide an example module, which uses my OOM-killer API
so install a new OOM killer.

Regards

Ingo Oeser

[1] http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~ioe/oom_kill_api.patch

-- 
Feel the power of the penguin - run linux@your.pc
<esc>:x
-
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: André Dahlqvist: "Re: big ECN push"
Previous message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: mapping user space buffer to kernel address space"
In reply to: Chris Swiedler: "why is modprobe (and nothing else) exec()'d?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:27 EST