On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, James Manning wrote:
>Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 18:17:42 -0500
>From: James Manning <jmm@computer.org>
>To: DeRobertis <derobert@erols.com>
>Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
>Subject: Re: Linux 2.2.15pre12 [VM fixes]
>
>[ 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.
>
>If the case isn't this clear-cut, though, I think killing by pid
>(highest->lowest) may be a decent hueristic since the most important
>processes (init, loggers, etc) tend to be long-running ones started
>early so they maintain pid's < 100.
Maybe 15 years ago. I'm running RedHat 6.1, and after the system
starts up most persistant daemons have PID's in the 300-1000
range. I would suspect it would be similar for other dists as
well.
Remember, when you ASS_U_ME things...
-- Mike A. Harris Linux advocate Computer Consultant GNU advocate Capslock Consulting Open Source advocateSuspicious Anagram #4: Word: PRESIDENT CLINTON OF THE USA Anagram: TO COPULATE HE FINDS INTERNS
- 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