From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dax.scot.redhat.com (sct@dax.scot.redhat.com [195.89.149.242]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA01070 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 17:36:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 17:45:55 GMT Message-Id: <199811271745.RAA01484@dax.scot.redhat.com> From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Two naive questions and a suggestion In-Reply-To: <19981126195942.1431.qmail@sidney.remcomp.fr> References: <19981126195942.1431.qmail@sidney.remcomp.fr> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: jfm2@club-internet.fr Cc: H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl, sct@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, On 26 Nov 1998 19:59:42 -0000, jfm2@club-internet.fr said: > My idea was: > -VM exhausted and process allocating is a normal process then kill > process. > -VM exhausted and process is a guaranteed one then kill a non > guaranteed process. > -VM exhausted, process is guaranteed but only remaining processes are > guaranteed ones. Kill allocated process. But the _whole_ problem is that we do not necessarily go around killing processes. We just fail requests for new allocations. In that case we still have not run out of memory yet, but a daemon may have died. It is simply not possible to guarantee all of the future memory allocations which a process might make! --Stephen -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org