On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > Note that the OOM killer already has this code built-in, but it may be oops, i didnt notice (really!). One comment: 5*HZ in your code is way too much for counter, and it might break the scheduler in the future. (right now those counter values are unused, RT priorities start at 1000, so it cannot cause harm, but one never knows.) Please use MAX_COUNTER instead. The SCHED_YIELD thing is a nice trick, it should be added to my signal.c change as well, without the schedule(). > a good idea to have SIGKILL delivery speeded up for every SIGKILL ... yep. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler john slee
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler David Ford
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Paul Jakma
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler David Ford
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler David Ford
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Andreas Dilger
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler David Ford
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Jamie Lokier
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Ingo Oeser