From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:58:46 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH] OOM killer API (was: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler) In-Reply-To: <20001010115740.B3468@opus.bloom.county> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Tom Rini Cc: Ingo Oeser , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 ;) regards, Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000 http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ -- 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/