Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:24:32 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net>, Ivan <Ivan.Djelic@prism.uvsq.fr>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Out of swap handling and X lockups in 3.2R Message-ID: <37E9AB80.C67E1B1D@newsguy.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909221227080.312-100000@picnic.mat.net> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909221024370.6368-100000@fw.wintelcom.net> <199909221727.LAA14290@mt.sri.com> <199909221738.KAA16257@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Dillon wrote: > > How about this - add an 'importance' resource. The lower the number, > the more likely the process will be killed if the system runs out of > resources. We would also make fork automatically decrement the number > by one in the child. Well, that's one thing people have asked for. It can be useful, and doesn't sound particularly hard to code, nor too intrusive or resource-hog. Would make some people, on both camps. Alas, some people will never let go until we have a no overcommit switch, and *then* they'll start asking for us to go to the lengths Solaris does to reduce the disadvantages. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "Thus, over the years my wife and I have physically diverged. While I have zoomed toward a crusty middle-age, she has instead clung doggedly to the sweet bloom of youth. Naturally I think this unfair. Yet, if it was the other way around, I confess I wouldn't be happy either." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37E9AB80.C67E1B1D>