From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:57:40 -0700 From: Tom Rini Subject: Re: [PATCH] OOM killer API (was: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler) Message-ID: <20001010115740.B3468@opus.bloom.county> References: <20001010170708.C784@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:32:50PM -0300 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Ingo Oeser , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:32:50PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Ingo Oeser wrote: > > > before you argue endlessly about the "Right OOM Killer (TM)", I > > did a small patch to allow replacing the OOM killer at runtime. > > > > So now you can stop arguing about the one and only OOM killer, > > implement it, provide it as module and get back to the important > > stuff ;-) > > This is definately a cool toy for people who have doubts > that my OOM killer will do the wrong thing in their > workloads. I think this can be useful for more than just a cool toy. I think that the main thing that this discusion has shown is no OOM killer will please 100% of the people 100% of the time. I think we should try and have a good generic OOM killer that kills the right process most of the time. People can impliment (and submit) different-style OOM killers as needed. Or at least get 'em on freshmeat. :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ -- 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/