From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:58:22 +0200 From: "Andi Kleen" Subject: Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Message-ID: <20001009225822.A21401@gruyere.muc.suse.de> References: <20001009220606.A20457@gruyere.muc.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from torvalds@transmeta.com on Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 01:52:21PM -0700 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar , Andrea Arcangeli , Rik van Riel , Byron Stanoszek , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 01:52:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > One thing we _can_ (and probably should do) is to do a per-user memory > pressure thing - we have easy access to the "struct user_struct" (every > process has a direct pointer to it), and it should not be too bad to > maintain a per-user "VM pressure" counter. > > Then, instead of trying to use heuristics like "does this process have > children" etc, you'd have things like "is this user a nasty user", which > is a much more valid thing to do and can be used to find people who fork > tons of processes that are mid-sized but use a lot of memory due to just > being many.. Would not help much when "they" eat your memory by loading big bitmaps into the X server which runs as root (it seems there are many programs which are very good at this particular DOS ;) Also I think most oom situations are accidents anyways, not malicious users. When you're the only user of the machine sophisticated per user accouting won't be very useful. -Andi -- 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/