Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 May 1997 11:54:31 +0300 (EET DST) | From | Samuli Kaski <> | Subject | Re: Out of memory kernel death |
| |
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.
But anyway I will throw in my input:
Another method is to use the living time of processes. Usually system processes (including netscape and x :)) live for a considerable amount of time growing slowly in memory allocation and cpu usage. Normally all the forking/bombing/malfunctioning programs take up considerable amounts of resources immediatly. Ofcourse if such an feature is implemented there has to be a way to disable it for some processes since we still want to be able to run qw clients and servers :)
(not forgetting those linux boxes that do number crunching and non-desktop work)
What am I not seeing here?
-- Samuli Kaski, samkaski@cs.helsinki.fi Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki, Finland.
| |