I do think that the special-run queue sounds great. I just don't like
killing random processes .... ;o)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter T. Breuer [SMTP:ptb@it.uc3m.es]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 12:21 AM
> To: woody@chunnel.oca.udayton.edu
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Patch to Memory Subsystem ... (Needed?)
>
> "A month of sundays ago woody@chunnel.oca.udayton.edu wrote:"
> >
> > But I do agree with the idea of having "reserved" root memory.
> Again as
> > stated before... having kilobytes instead of pages declared makes it
> > universal... be it 32 or 64 bits. ;)
>
> One thing that occurs to me is that one can use the multiple run
> queues
> idea. But not for running processes.
>
> Suppose that vital root processes were somehow started on a special
> run
> queue (that's just to give them a "special" character). Then in an
> out
> of memory situation, kill processes that are not on that run queue.
> Only start daemons from init on that queue by default. It's not a bad
> idea to put demons under the control of init anyway.
>
> Separation of rights/preferences is needed to control oom. Killing
> "the
> most likely culprit" is fair enough, but a better answer is to define
> processes rights and expectations more clearly. There is a group of
> processes that has a right and the expectation to get and hold a
> certain
> amount of memory. That is init and maybe a "monitor" daemon.
>
> How much work would it be to split the run queues one more time, for
> no good
> process queueing reason?
>
> Peter
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/