[ Monday, March 6, 2000 ] Mike A. Harris wrote:
> >> >If the case isn't this clear-cut, though, I think killing by pid
> >> >(highest->lowest) may be a decent hueristic since the most important
> >> >processes (init, loggers, etc) tend to be long-running ones started
> >> >early so they maintain pid's < 100.
>
> Assuming or generalizing things will be at certain PID's or below
> certain PID's is very bad because it is 99% unpredicatable. That
> is the important thing that I had to say - put into more verbose
> terms for those that couldn't derive it..
Again, notice that my heuristic was simply reverse-ordering
chronologically. Yes, I meant pid's < 1000, but the number itself had
*nothing* to do with the heuristic, it was simply part of the explanation.
(I had quickly checked where my mingetty's were at, 672-677... never
knew a typo would get me barraged like this :)
mutt users: if you haven't already, hit control-d now.
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 21:00:19 EST