Re: Andrea VM changes
From: Jörn Engel (joern_at_wohnheim.fh-wedel.de)
Date: 08/31/03
- Previous message: Benjamin Herrenschmidt: "Re: Total radeonfb failure on both 2.6.0-test4 and 2.6.0-test4-mm4"
- In reply to: Dan Kegel: "Re: Andrea VM changes"
- Next in thread: Dan Kegel: "Re: Andrea VM changes"
- Reply: Dan Kegel: "Re: Andrea VM changes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:48:27 +0200 To: Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>
On Sun, 31 August 2003 08:51:55 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
> In the test-and-measurement system I'm developing,
> it turned out the sanest thing to do with OOM conditions
> was to consider them user errors, and to handle them
> by dumping memory usage info about processes and slab caches,
> then halt. It's been very helpful because it turns flaky
> conditions into rock-solid failures. Too bad this drastic
> approach isn't appropriate for general use.
Sound interesting. Can you send a patch for the interested and
unafraid?
Jörn
-- A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party; there is no battle unless there be two. -- Seneca - 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/
- Previous message: Benjamin Herrenschmidt: "Re: Total radeonfb failure on both 2.6.0-test4 and 2.6.0-test4-mm4"
- In reply to: Dan Kegel: "Re: Andrea VM changes"
- Next in thread: Dan Kegel: "Re: Andrea VM changes"
- Reply: Dan Kegel: "Re: Andrea VM changes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
