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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:13 EST