On 04/18/16 at 09:39am, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 01:32:53PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > On 04/14/16 at 09:00pm, Russell King wrote: > > > If we are unable to find a suitable page when allocating the control > > > page, do not invoke the OOM-killer: killing processes probably isn't > > > going to help. > > > > Originally kexec was made to reboot to test kernel quickly. If 1st > > kernel is palyed and hurted in a bad state and developer want to discard > > it and take a quick reboot, why don't we have a best try to make a > > successful kexec load? > > And if it kills off every process trying to get a suitable page, > which then means you can't do anything other than power cycle, > that's okay? Yes, I agree on that it's non-sense if every process is killed. But will each kexec load which need OOM-killer go that far? And there's only one page (if 32 bit) or 2 pages (if 64 bit) for control page, it may not need kill that many processes to pick one. > > -- > RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ > FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up > according to speedtest.net. > > _______________________________________________ > kexec mailing list > kexec at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
