Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:34:46 +0000 (GMT) | From | James Sutherland <> | Subject | Re: guarantee_memory() syscall? |
| |
On 29 Oct 2000, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Raul Miller <moth@magenta.com> writes: > > > Can anyone tell me about the viability of a guarantee_memory() syscall? > > > > [I'm thinking: it would either kill the process, or allocate all virtual > > memory needed for its shared libraries, buffers, allocated memory, etc. > > Furthermore, it would render this process immune to the OOM killer, > > unless it allocated further memory.] > > Except for the OOM killer semantics mlockall already exists.
More to the point, "immortality" is NOT a desirable "feature": the OOM killer just kills things which must be killed to protect the overall system. We'll have a finely adjustable memory killer daemon soon, which will be a better solution.
James.
- 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/
|  |