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 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/
