Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler

From: Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br)
Date: Mon Oct 09 2000 - 16:54:04 EST

Next message: Keith Owens: "Re: Calling current() from interrupt context"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
In reply to: Aaron Sethman: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Next in thread: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Aaron Sethman wrote:

> I think the run time should probably be accounted into to this
> as well. Basically start knocking off recent processes first,
> which are likely to be childless, and start working your way up
> in age.

I'm almost getting USENET flashbacks ... ;)

Please look at the code before suggesting something that
is already there (and has been in the code for some 2 years).

regards,

Rik

-- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000

http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/

- 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/

Next message: Keith Owens: "Re: Calling current() from interrupt context"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
In reply to: Aaron Sethman: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Next in thread: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:13 EST