From owner-cvs-src Fri Mar 14 13: 5:47 2003 Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1813337B407 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:05:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail15.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.215]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DCCF43FD7 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:05:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 8191 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2003 21:05:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail15.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 14 Mar 2003 21:05:45 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2EL5UOv057831; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:05:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20030314204454.GI567@garage.freebsd.pl> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:05:48 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/vm ... SIGDANGER Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, David Schultz , Eivind Eklund , Juli Mallett , Poul-Henning Kamp , Garance A Drosihn , Mike Silbersack , "Daniel C. Sobral" Sender: owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 14-Mar-2003 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 05:24:42PM -0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > +> No, there are a couple of other cases: > +> > +> 3) Serious Processing(tm) application blithely allocates memory until > +> memory allocation fails. At that point it stops allocating memory. > +> Another application then uses some previously untouched allocated > +> memory, and first application gets killed losing hours of work. > +> > +> 4) Very Important Server allocates a lot of memory, and gets killed when > +> stupid user starts another xterm. > +> > +> Whatever you may or may not think the correct way of handling these two > +> cases is, people *have* complained of our present way of handling them. > > Why not choose process to kill by their priority? > > If we got some important processes even without uid=0 we could renice them > to value less than 0. I don't think raw priority should be taken into account, but using the nice value in the algorithm (perhaps as a weight of some sort?) sounds like a good idea actually. nice is an existent mechanism for SA's to mark which processes are more important than others so it seems intuitive to seek to preserve nice -20 processes at the expense of nice +20 processes. That also works without changes to existing programs and will return expected results in current systems w/o the need for major adjustments. SIGDANGER, etc. might also be a good idea, but I think letting nice factor into the equation is a good thing regardless. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-src" in the body of the message