Re: [PATCH] OOM killer API (was: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler)

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:58:46PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Tom Rini wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Indeed, though I suspect most of the people trying this would
> fall into the trap of over-engineering their OOM killer, after
> which it mostly becomes less predictable ;)

I was thinking more along the lines of ones w/ "safety" features that not
everyone might like/need (ie /usr/local/bin/foo is always good, those
sugjestions).  It seems like useful functionality at little/no cost.
And a neat toy for now. :)

-- 
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/