lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.053 / U:0.652 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site