Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes
From: Robert Love (rml_at_tech9.net)
Date: 09/12/03
- Previous message: Mike Fedyk: "Re: Reiser3/4 & Ext2/3 was: First impressions of reiserfs4"
- In reply to: Rusty Lynch: "[RFC] Enabling other oom schemes"
- Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes"
- Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: rusty@linux.co.intel.com Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:50:30 -0400
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 22:19, Rusty Lynch wrote:
> The patch works (although by looking over oom_kill.c, I'm sure oom_panic.c
> will panic too soon), but it is really only a quick hack to see how people
> feel about such an approach.
I like this a _lot_, it is something I have thought about doing, and
something we have a need for at MontaVista.
But I think its a lot more useful if we have alternative overcommit
modes to use with it.
An oom_nop might be a good idea. But some different policies, i.e. ones
with more determinism but less smarts, are interesting.
Robert Love
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Mike Fedyk: "Re: Reiser3/4 & Ext2/3 was: First impressions of reiserfs4"
- In reply to: Rusty Lynch: "[RFC] Enabling other oom schemes"
- Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes"
- Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
