Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Having a SIGDANGER handler is good for 2 reasons:
> 1) Lets processes know when memory is short so they can free needless cache.
> 2) Mark process with a SIGDANGER handler as "more important" than those
> without. Most people won't care about this, but init, and X, and
> long-running simulations might.
For point 1, it would be much nicer to have user processes participate
in memory balancing _before_ getting anywhere near an OOM state.
A nice way is to send SIGDANGER with siginfo saying how much memory the
kernel wants back (or how fast). Applications that don't know to use
that info, but do have a SIGDANGER handler, will still react just rather
more severely.
-- Jamie
-
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 - 21:00:15 EST