lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [W:0.058 / U:1.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site