On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:38:08PM +0100, James Sutherland wrote: > Shouldn't the runtime factor handle this, making sure the new process is The runtime factor in the algorithm will make the first difference only after lots lots of time (and the run_time can as well be wrong because of jiffies wrap around). But even if it would make a difference after 1 second, there would be a 1 second window where init can be killed. Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Philipp Rumpf
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler James Sutherland
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler J.A. Sutherland
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Aaron Sethman
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Jim Gettys
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Linus Torvalds