Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:15:53 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler |
| |
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:06:02PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > i think the OOM algorithm should not kill processes that have > > process that has child processes likely results in unexpected behavior of > > You just know what I think about those heuristics. I think all > we need is a per-task pagefault/allocation rate avoiding any > other complication that tries to do the right thing but that it > will end doing the wrong thing eventually, but obviously nobody > agreeed with me and before I implement that myself it will still > take some time.
Furthermore, keeping track of these allocations will mean that you /ALWAYS/ rack up the overhead of keeping track of this, even though most machines probably won't run out of memory ever, or no more than twice a year or so ;)
> Even the total_vm information will be wrong for example if the > task was a netscape iconized and completly swapped out that > wasn't running since two days. Killing it is going to only delay > the killing of the real offender that is generating a flood of > page faults at high frequency.
However true this may be, I wonder if we really care /that/ much.
OOM is a very rare situation and as long as you don't do something that's really a bad surprise to the user, everything should be ok.
regards,
Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
- 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/
|  |