From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 30 08:14:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D984D37B401; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:14:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-relay.omnis.com (smtp-relay.omnis.com [216.239.128.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F46543FBF; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:14:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from softweyr.homeunix.net (66-91-236-204.san.rr.com [66.91.236.204]) by smtp-relay.omnis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3470435DE; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:14:09 -0800 (PST) From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:14:09 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <10261.1048975354@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <10261.1048975354@critter.freebsd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303300814.09180.wes@softweyr.com> cc: David Schultz cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch to protect process from pageout killing X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:14:17 -0000 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