From owner-freebsd-current Thu Nov 12 02:55:24 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA23762 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 02:55:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from marathon.tekla.fi (marathon.tekla.fi [192.98.7.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA23754 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 02:55:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sja@tekla.fi) Received: from poveri.tekla.fi (poveri.tekla.fi [192.98.7.19]) by marathon.tekla.fi (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA15108 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:55:00 +0200 From: Sakari Jalovaara Received: by poveri.tekla.fi; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/20Aug96-0557PM) id AA29632; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:55:11 +0200 Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:55:11 +0200 Message-Id: <9811121055.AA29632@poveri.tekla.fi> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The infamous dying daemons bug Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Could someone who can reproduce the dying daemons problem try a little > experiment: kill syslogd and then induce the out-of-memory condition. > Do other daemons still start dying? There is a sort of a point to this experiment, too :-) The kernel printf() does stuff to wake up syslogd. What I was wondering, is every place (such as the swapper) prepared for whatever the wakeup does? Not having syslogd around should usually make the wakeup a no-op. ++sja To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message