From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:46:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:46:15 -0400 Received: from h24-64-71-161.cg.shawcable.net ([24.64.71.161]:20720 "EHLO webber.adilger.int") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:46:03 -0400 From: Andreas Dilger Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:46:22 -0600 To: BALBIR SINGH Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] OOM aware applications Message-ID: <20010925104622.B392@turbolinux.com> Mail-Followup-To: BALBIR SINGH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <3BB013D3.6060408@wipro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3BB013D3.6060408@wipro.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sep 25, 2001 10:49 +0530, BALBIR SINGH wrote: > Warning: I am not aware of what was discussed earlier about these issues > or if they were discusses at all. They have been discussed many times. Please search for SIGDANGER in the linux-kernel mailing list archive. > 1. I was wondering that instead of killing the application using > oom_kill_task() directly, should the OOM issue some kind of a > warning by sending a signal (some signal with si_code set to a > value indicating that the application is causing memory to run > out). Then, wait for a while and then see if the application is > still misbehaving and if so kill it. This is exactly what SIGDANGER is. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert