On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:58:46PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 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 ;)
I was thinking more along the lines of ones w/ "safety" features that not
everyone might like/need (ie /usr/local/bin/foo is always good, those
sugjestions). It seems like useful functionality at little/no cost.
And a neat toy for now. :)
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
-
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/
