lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Patch to Memory Subsystem ... (Needed?)
Date
"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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.071 / U:0.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site