Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > They are niced because the user thinks them a bit less
> > > important.
> >
> > Please don't, this assumption is quite wrong. I use nice just to
> > be 'nice' to other users. I can run my *important* CPU hog
> > simulation nice +10 in order to let other people get more CPU
> > when the need it.
>
> 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.
Please base this on more on real time, not CPU time. Netscrape consumes an
ungodly amount of CPU time and memory and I'd much rather have it killed
before anything else on the system. If it wasn't blatantly obvious, I'd
check the argv[0] to see if it was "netscape" and kill it. :]
> This doesn't make ANY sense at all. 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.
But that favors ill written programs if it's based on CPU time. I.e.
netscape and all the gnome/kde "tasklets" that take 8 megs w/ 6megs RSS and
.9% of a pIII-450 to manage the keyboard and mouse properties.
> If you have a better algorithm, feel free to send patches.
Step A) A heuristic that tags the program or process group consuming the most
RAM in the last N real minutes. A run-away process is the highest target
here and is most correctly the guilty party.
Step B) A sliding scale of the youngest real program or process group
consuming the most RAM.
Step C) ...
-d
--
"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are
virtue and talents", Thomas Jefferson [1742-1826], 3rd US President
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:12 EST