Re: oom killer and its superior braindamage in 2.4

[David Mansfield]

> 
> > If you read my post, the bug is that the kernel CANNOT kill that
> > process?  Why?  If it's really a bad process, shouldn't it be the one
> > that gets killed?
> 
> > This is my question, and I don't see how the patch addresses it.
> 
> And you won't see one, either.  You cannot change the
> semantics of uninterruptible sleep, nor can the OOM
> killer change other device driver things.

So you're saying that a process can stay in the D state, without ever 
getting enough resources to complete a single Uninteruptible wait, for 
hours at a time?

Ok.  Now I understand your patch.  Thanks for the info.

You should push your patch to Marcelo. 

Thanks,
David

-- 
/==============================\
| David Mansfield              |
| [e-mail]             |
\==============================/