Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | Marc-Christian Petersen <> | Subject | Re: oom killer and its superior braindamage in 2.4 | Date | Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:27:51 +0100 |
| |
On Monday 24 February 2003 10:13, Mikael Starvik wrote:
Hi Mikael,
> Does everyone agree that killing a process is always the best approach > to resolve an OOM? If the OOM is caused by e.g. a growing tmpfs or > memory leaks in the kernel it won't help much to kill processes that > may respawn. Well, I don't agree that it's always the best approach. Other bad things, you metioned it, can happen.
> Would it be useful if it was possible to register another oom-handler? > Some architectures could then choose to e.g. reboot the system instead. I'd like to see _an option_ (read: not default but an option, e.g. boot parameter) that will reboot the machine after $specified_time if an OOM killing action does not stop.
ciao, Marc
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |