lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Killing/balancing processes when overcommited
From
Actually, the "offense is not asking for memory". The issue is 
gracefully responding to an exhausted resource in some kind of
predetermined way - memory being just one example, but the that started
this thread.

Any algorithm that bases the solution on the developer's notion of
"niceness" and "offense" may not solve the problem the user installation
is trying to solve - gracefully shutting down work (or ungracefully if
necessary) based on the installations priorities and needs rather than
randomly killing. Hopefully, the system can survive past the peak that
aggravating the problem or at least let someone add the resources
needed. In the particular case of "out of memory", add swap spaces.

I'd rather be able to choose to lose the online cafeteria menu before I
lose the emergency dispatch system. I'd much rather take action well
before any of the critical system functions are sacrificed. To me,
logging on by the wheel is going to fix the problem is quite high on my
priority list. But with Tim's definition, he is the offended because he
would be asking for memory.

I have to beg off this discussion for a week as I'll me out of country.
I shall return.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.094 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site