From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965000AbWBHVV6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:21:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965014AbWBHVV5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:21:57 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:59870 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965000AbWBHVV4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:21:56 -0500 From: Andi Kleen To: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: Terminate process that fails on a constrained allocation Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 22:21:35 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 Cc: clameter@engr.sgi.com, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200602082201.12371.ak@suse.de> <20060208130351.fc1c759c.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20060208130351.fc1c759c.pj@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200602082221.35671.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 08 February 2006 22:03, Paul Jackson wrote: > > I don't think you really want to open a full scale "is the oom killer needed" > > thread. Check the archives - there have been some going on for months. > > > > But I think we can agree that together with mbind the oom killer is pretty > > useless, can't we? > > Excellent points. > > I approve this patch. I think it should be put into 2.6.16. Andrew? I had the small objection about adding static noinline, but it's really not important and the patch can be used as it. -Andi