From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:29:00 +0200 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Message-ID: <20001009202900.A3821@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> References: <20001009182651.S1679@garloff.etpnet.phys.tue.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20001009182651.S1679@garloff.etpnet.phys.tue.nl>; from garloff@suse.de on Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 06:26:51PM +0200 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Kurt Garloff , Marco Colombo , Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Kurt Garloff wrote: > I could not agree more. Normally, you'd better kill a foreground task > (running nice 0) than selecting one of those background jobs for some > reasons: > * The foreground job can be restarted by the interactive user > (Most likely, it will be only netscape anyway) > * The background job probably is the more useful one which has been running > since a longer time (computations, ...) Ick. A background job that's been running for a long time will be saved by that, as Rik pointed out. If I've got a background process running for 30 minutes, and a Netscape with 5 windows open that I'm using (for long or not, doesn't matter), guess which one I'd rather died? Not Netscape -- I'm using that and I'll never remember how to find those 5 windows again if it just dies. -- Jamie -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/