From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 628E26B0095 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:34:43 -0500 (EST) From: Lubos Lunak Subject: Re: Improving OOM killer Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:34:38 +0100 References: <201002012302.37380.l.lunak@suse.cz> <201002102154.39771.l.lunak@suse.cz> <4B73206C.8090108@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4B73206C.8090108@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201002102234.38377.l.lunak@suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Rik van Riel Cc: David Rientjes , Balbir Singh , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , KOSAKI Motohiro , Nick Piggin , Jiri Kosina List-ID: On Wednesday 10 of February 2010, Rik van Riel wrote: > On 02/10/2010 03:54 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote: > > Simply computing the cost of the whole children subtree (or a > > reasonable approximation) avoids the need for any magic numbers and gives > > a much better representation of how costly the subtree is, since, well, > > it is the cost itself. > > That assumes you want to kill off that entire tree. As said in another mail, I think I actually do, since the entire tree is indentified as the problem. But regardless of that, surely computing the cost of a forkbomb by computing something that is close to the actual cost of it is better than trying magic numbers? -- Lubos Lunak openSUSE Boosters team, KDE developer l.lunak@suse.cz , l.lunak@kde.org -- 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-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org