From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by fenrus.demon.nl via sendmail from stdin id (Debian Smail3.2.0.102) for linux-mm@kvack.org; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:30:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:30:30 +0200 (CEST) From: arjan@fenrus.demon.nl (Arjan van de Ven) Subject: Re: [patch] memory hog protection In-Reply-To: <3903D353.D98969B7@mandrakesoft.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Jeff Garzik Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: In article <3903D353.D98969B7@mandrakesoft.com> you wrote: >> the patch below changes the mm->swap_cnt assignment to put >> memory hogs at a disadvantage to programs with a smaller > There are many classes of problems where preserving interactivity at the > expense of a resource hog is a bad not good idea. Think of obscure > situations like database servers for example :) Is it really that bad to have a sysctl (or other /proc thingy) named "boostinteractive" or whatever, and means that the owner of the machine wants to favor interactive processes over memory/cpu hogs. This can be used for 1) Rick's MM pressure stuff 2) The scheduler 3) The OOM selection algorithm Greetings, Arjan van de Ven -- 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/