From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 19:12:56 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH] a simple OOM killer to save me from Netscape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Jonathan Morton Cc: "James A. Sutherland" , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , "Eric W. Biederman" , Slats Grobnik , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton List-ID: On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote: > >Ideally, I'd SIGSTOP each thrashing process. That way, enough > >processes can be swapped out and KEPT swapped out to allow others to > >complete their task, freeing up physical memory. Then you can SIGCONT > >the processes you suspended, and make progress that way. There are > >risks of "deadlocks", of course - suspend X, and all your graphical > >apps will lock up waiting for it. This should lower VM pressure enough > >to cause X to be restarted, though... > > Strongly agree. Two points that need defining for this: > > - When does a process become "thrashing"? Clearly paging-in in itself is > not a good measure, since all processes do this at startup - paging-in > which forces other memory out, OTOH, is a prime target. > > - How long do we suspend it for? Does this depend on how many times it's > been suspended recently? I'm already working on something like this. Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ -- 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/