Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:05:14 -0800 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch to protect process from pageout killing Message-ID: <20030331090514.GB32360@HAL9000.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <10261.1048975354@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <200303280910.32307.wes@softweyr.com> <10261.1048975354@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>: > 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 ? > > Also, thinking about it, on at least a handful of machines I would > have more use for MADV_KILLMEFIRST having the exact opposite > behaviour. KILLMEFIRST is more of an advisory mechanism. See relevant discussions of SIGDANGER, priority systems, etc. These are all good ideas, but I think they belong in a domain of cooperation and altruism, whereas MADV_PROTECT is the memory equivalent of rtprio. At some level, there is generally a set of processes that should never, ever be killed, e.g. postgres, sshd, apache. So you're right that KILLMEFIRST would be useful, but MADV_PROTECT is a very nice first step.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030331090514.GB32360>