From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:41:33 +0000 (GMT) From: James Sutherland Subject: Re: Discussion on my OOM killer API In-Reply-To: <20001030100215.A26676@viva.uti.hu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: G?bor L?n?rt Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, G?bor L?n?rt wrote: > > > Policy should be decided user-side, and should prevent the kernel-side > > > killer EVER triggering. > > > > > > > Only problem is that your user side process will have been pushed out > > of memory by netcape and that in this kind of situations it will take > > a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong > > Nope. Use mlock(). > Second it's clear that we should implement a stupid kernel side OOM killer > too in case of something goes really wrong, but that killer can be really > stupid and constant part of system. In normal cases user space OOM killer > should do the job for us ... Yes, that's my plan. AIUI, Ingo is going to do the kernel hooks I need, I'll do the userspace policy daemon? James. -- 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/