Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:46:36 -0700 | From | Tom Rini <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] OOM killer API (was: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler) |
| |
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:58:46PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:32:50PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Ingo Oeser wrote: > > > > > > > before you argue endlessly about the "Right OOM Killer (TM)", I > > > > did a small patch to allow replacing the OOM killer at runtime. > > > > > > > > So now you can stop arguing about the one and only OOM killer, > > > > implement it, provide it as module and get back to the important > > > > stuff ;-) > > > > > > This is definately a cool toy for people who have doubts > > > that my OOM killer will do the wrong thing in their > > > workloads. > > > > I think this can be useful for more than just a cool toy. I > > think that the main thing that this discusion has shown is no > > OOM killer will please 100% of the people 100% of the time. I > > think we should try and have a good generic OOM killer that > > kills the right process most of the time. People can impliment > > (and submit) different-style OOM killers as needed. > > Indeed, though I suspect most of the people trying this would > fall into the trap of over-engineering their OOM killer, after > which it mostly becomes less predictable ;)
I was thinking more along the lines of ones w/ "safety" features that not everyone might like/need (ie /usr/local/bin/foo is always good, those sugjestions). It seems like useful functionality at little/no cost. And a neat toy for now. :)
-- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |