(not cc'ed to the bts) On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Herbert Xu wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Nope, that's exactly what the OOM killer was designed to do. Processes > >> like syslogd is meant to be the last ones to be killed. > > I am not at ease to go poking on the OOM, though. Someone else better used > > to kernel programming should do it... > The OOM killer should already do this as it is, no modifications are > required...
I've just read the OOM killer in 2.4.17. It has provisions that tend NOT to select klogd or syslogd in a system that has been running for a while, but it may end up killing them. It does this by assuming that such important stuff was started early, and stayed put (i.e. was not restarted)... at least that is what I understood from the code and comments. Now, if you just upgraded sysklogd, or otherwise caused an important process to restart, you are less safe against the OOM trying to kill what you did NOT want it to kill. Nowhere does it use the process name to lessen the chances of killing a process. IMHO it would be a nice idea to have such a whitelist just in case. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
