On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Yan Seiner wrote:
> --- In "Jesse Off" <> wrote:
> >
> > A lot of people have been noticing "__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation
> > failed" being printed by the kernel and subsequent kernel freezes in low
> > memory conditions. It turns out that the kernel actually has a lot more
> > memory free when these messages appear and the intentional Linux behavior
> > on out-of-memory condition is to randomly kill processes (*not* to lock
> > up with these messages).
> >
> > This patch fixes a bug originally fixed by a Linux contracting firm for
> > one of our customers, but who both were unwilling to give the GPL'ed code
> > back to the community (they wanted to sell it)
...snip...
>
> Is anyone aware of a way to prioritize the way the kernel kills processes?
Good question. I vaguely remember reading a discussion on this some years
back.
However, I wonder if these system calls
mlock (2) - disable paging for some parts of memory
mlockall (2) - disable paging for calling process
munlock (2) - reenable paging for some parts of memory
munlockall (2) - reenable paging for calling process
are any use. I'd guess that a process whose pages were locked
would be protected in some way???? To be honest I'm guessing, but if
you do find out I'd sure be interested.
Jim
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ts-7000/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|