Messages in this thread | | | From | "Peter T. Breuer" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Patch to Memory Subsystem ... (Needed?) | Date | Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:20:56 +0100 (MET) |
| |
"A month of sundays ago woody@chunnel.oca.udayton.edu wrote:" > > But I do agree with the idea of having "reserved" root memory. Again as > stated before... having kilobytes instead of pages declared makes it > universal... be it 32 or 64 bits. ;)
One thing that occurs to me is that one can use the multiple run queues idea. But not for running processes.
Suppose that vital root processes were somehow started on a special run queue (that's just to give them a "special" character). Then in an out of memory situation, kill processes that are not on that run queue. Only start daemons from init on that queue by default. It's not a bad idea to put demons under the control of init anyway.
Separation of rights/preferences is needed to control oom. Killing "the most likely culprit" is fair enough, but a better answer is to define processes rights and expectations more clearly. There is a group of processes that has a right and the expectation to get and hold a certain amount of memory. That is init and maybe a "monitor" daemon.
How much work would it be to split the run queues one more time, for no good process queueing reason?
Peter
- 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/
| |