Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 May 1997 16:49:45 -0500 (CDT) | From | Jason Burrell <> | Subject | Re: Out of memory kernel death |
| |
On Thu, 8 May 1997, Samuli Kaski wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 1997, James Mastros wrote: > > > Wouldn't killing off the process that has the lowest CPU use be best > > (other than processes 1-10, which are reserved, and currently all not > > terminatable without dire consiqunces), on the theory that it wasn't doing > > anything anyway? That should atleast give you enough memory to kill -HUP > > others instead of just destroying them. > > I think this has been discussed before and all the methods brought > up were found to be inadequate for common usage. Someone was always > able to find a situation in which the algorithm in question didn't > work as it was supposed to.
Well, since we're talking about doing controversial and rather ugly things, why not just throw in a kernel configuration option to handle this? The "original" method, "nuke all processes with more than x children", etc.
I'll gladly admit that isn't a great idea and is rather ugly, though.
-- Good government. Good government. Sit. Stay.
| |