On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 17:42, Martin Langhoff <martin.langh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <to...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: >>> Can't we just _close it nicely_? >> >> When you are about to get into OOM? > > Early on so we avoid OOM for most cases. Right now our OOM use cases > have nothing to do with misbehaved activities. > > Once you're in "about to get into OOM", sugar-shell is unlikely to get > many cycles (and python is a bad lang to try handling this). If you > can seed the OOM scores of the process early on, you have a chance > that OOM will kill a reasonably "correct" one. (Not sure what the > state of play is with seeding the OOM scores from userland).
I tried to make clear before that by all means I think we should give the user and activities the chance to do what is best early on. >> point we should have given the activities and/or the user the option >> to avoid this situation. > > I think it's the only thing we can reasonably do. And [if possible], > seed OOM scores. > > When things get tight, only the kernel has a standing chance to run code. Well, the shell would kill activities before we get that tight. But I agree that if if we can use OOM scores to have the kernel kill the less bad thing, that sounds better. Regards, Tomeu > cheers, > > > m > -- > martin.langh...@gmail.com > mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect > - ask interesting questions > - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first > - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff > _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel