RE: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler

["Wagner, Dave" <dwagner@amazon.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ingo Molnar [mailto:mingo@elte.hu]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 11:02 AM
> To: Ed Tomlinson
> Cc: Mark Hahn; Marco Colombo; Rik van Riel; linux-mm@kvack.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler
> 
> 
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> 
> > What about the AIX way?  When the system is nearly OOM it sends a
> > SIG_DANGER signal to all processes.  Those that handle the 
> signal are
> > not initial targets for OOM...  Also in the SIG_DANGER 
> processing they
> > can take there own actions to reduce their memory usage... (we would
> > have to look out for a SIG_DANGER handler that had a memory leak
> > though)
> 
> i think 'importance' should be an integer value, not just a 
> 'can it handle
> SIG_DANGER' flag.
> 
In a perfect world, perhaps.  But how many people/systems are going to
have a well-thought out distribution of "importance" values.  It's
probably too much to have people even set a single boolean value
reasonably.

How about a bit in the executable to say "unimportant".  Netscape, would
of course, have this bit set. ;-)

Dave Wagner
--
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/