lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler

On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:

> In that case the time the process has been running and the
> CPU time used will save the process if it's been running for
> a long time.

'importance' is not something we can measure reliably within the kernel.
And assuming that a niced, not long-running process is unimportant misses
the bus as well. What if i just started an important simulation before
going to vacation for two weeks?

> would you really care if a simulation would be killed after
> 5 minutes? [...]

yes, i would. I would probably end up not using nice values. Please, Rik,
dont penalize an unrelated kernel feature!

> [...] The objective is to destroy the least amount of work, which
> means giving a bonus to processes which have used a lot of CPU time
> already ... regardless of nice value.

your OOM code does not follow this objective:

+ /*
+ * Niced processes are most likely less important, so double
+ * their badness points.
+ */
+ if (p->nice > 0)
+ points *= 2;

Niced processes *can be just as important*.

> If you have a better algorithm, feel free to send patches.

yes. Please remove the above part.

Ingo

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.131 / U:0.364 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site