Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:53:06 +0200 (CEST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: Memory hogs |
| |
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Hermann Schichl wrote: > Werner Almesberger wrote: > > > Hermann Schichl wrote: > > > I think it would be great if OOM handling would be > > > configurable (either kernel compile time or /proc interface) > > > > Better yet, have a device or proc file that becomes readable in this case. > > Then you can have a user-space demon to implement whatever policy you like. > > Yes, I think this is the cleanest idea. And it could be expanded > to most limit-exceeding situations (num of processes,...).
Once you get out of memory, there is no clean solution.
Putting the bloat in userland doesn't mean there is no bloat -- the additional overhead will probably just 'uglify' the problem.
My solution works rather well so I don't see why there are so much objections to it again...
We've had this whole discussion just before the 2.2pre era, when I decided the kernel should stabilize and my patch wasn't important enough to disturb the debugging.
I propose we stop this discussion until somebody produces better CODE then what's in my patch.
Rik -- Open Source: you deserve to be in control of your data. +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Le Reseau netwerksystemen BV: http://www.reseau.nl/ | | Linux Memory Management site: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/ | | Nederlandse Linux documentatie: http://www.nl.linux.org/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |