At 6:17 PM -0500 on 3/5/00, James Manning wrote:
>[ Sunday, March 5, 2000 ] DeRobertis wrote:
>> We've got processor priorities, why not memory priorities?
>
>When you OOM, it's (typically) the case where it's a single process that's
>going crazy and being a huge memory hog.
...
>Killing other processes ahead
>of it won't typically mean very much, as you'll have to kill more until
>you finally get to the spiraling-out-of-control memory hog.
I use my Linux box as a desktop. So I usually don't want the memory hog
(NetScape) dead. Most of the time I've gotten OOM, it's been because of
a moderately (or sometimes quickly) growing program, not because of
something going beserk.
And anything that can spiral out of control, you'd of course set to a
high-numbered memory priority -- that way, it'd be killed first. While
you'd set the other things to a lower-numbered memory priority.
This set up could work nicely, for example, on a webserver, too. Apache
would keep it's memory priority as 0, whiile any CGI's it spawns would
be given 1. It'd probably work for others servers that spawn processes,
too.
I imagine a lot of the time the memory-hungry process and the
lower-priority process might corespond, though.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 21:00:19 EST