VM nuisance
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 17 lines · you
Quoted 10 lines
No. The problem is that whenever I change something to the OOM killer I get flamed.
Both by the people for whom the OOM killer kicks in too early and by the people for whom the OOM killer now doesn't kick in.
I haven't got the faintest idea how to come up with an OOM killer which does the right thing for everybody.
How about adding some sort of per-process priority (i.e. a la nice) which would determine the order in which they would be OOMed? Then we could safely run X with a kigh KillMe and Netscape with an even higher KillMe and we would probably avoid the something useing too much memory let's kill root's shell...
Quoted 3 lines
[i.e. if a lower KillMe proc runs out of memory we kill off the process with the highest KillMe using most mem and can safely give this mem to the proc which just ran out]
Ah, so you kill X because of the high KillMe you've assigned? I can see that this idea quickly leads to dependecies and their problems (if I kill X, I therefore have killed all Netscapes too... but if I kill a dhcp, without killing Netscape first, netscape is useless ... blah blah blah).
If there is insufficient memory for a process, tell it to sit on it and spin, especially since : "I haven't got the faintest idea..." Stop trying to make up for the sysadmin bozo.
Signature · 1 line
Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ... I'm afraid I can't do that."