Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:14:09 -0800 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch to protect process from pageout killing Message-ID: <200303300814.09180.wes@softweyr.com> In-Reply-To: <10261.1048975354@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <10261.1048975354@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 29 March 2003 14:02, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <200303280910.32307.wes@softweyr.com>, Wes Peters writes:
> >I've reworked my patch to use the madvise(2) syscall, like the
> > original 4.x patch did. I've even documented it, in a man page of
> > all places. Please see attached patch. If nobody objects, I'll
> > commit sometime this weekend.
>
> I'm still not certain about the inheritance of this, do we want/is it
> inherited ?
In my case, I don't want the property to be inherited because I don't want
all of the squid worker processes to be "immortal," just the parent. I'm
not sure about other facilities. Children of inetd are a good gedanken
but seem a mixed bag to me; you might not want to kill off a POP or IMAP
server, but interactive logins probably are expendable. That seems to
call for non-inheritance. This is easily tunable after the fact, if
someone comes up with a compelling reason to have this flag be inherited.
> Also, thinking about it, on at least a handful of machines I would
> have more use for MADV_KILLMEFIRST having the exact opposite
> behaviour.
Hmm, that's an interesting viewpoint. I'm approaching this very much from
the embedded server appliance viewpoint, and given my past few years
experience am not able to see much beyond that and a programmers
workstation. ;^)
--
Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200303300814.09180.wes>