Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:58:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:55:49 -0500 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:17678 "HELO postfix.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:54:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:53:57 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Martin Dalecki Cc: Stephen Clouse , Guest section DW , "Patrick O'Rourke" , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init In-Reply-To: <3C9BCD6E.94A5BAA0@evision-ventures.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote: > Uptime of a process is a much better mesaure for a killing > candidate then it's size. You'll have fun with your root shell, then ;) The current OOM code takes things like uptime, used cpu, size and a bunch of other things into account. If it turns out that the code is not attaching a proper weight to some of these factors, you should be sending patches, not flames. (the code is full of comments, so it should be easy enough to find your way around the code and tweak it until it does the right thing in a number of test cases) regards, Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/