On 21 Mar 2000 11:32:25 +0100, David Whysong <dwhysong@physics.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>[cc list trimmed]
>
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, James Sutherland wrote about OOM handling:
>
>>Yes; the current handling is about as good as it can get without
>>per-user resource management, which is a long way off.
>
>Uh, come again? The current handling is to kill processes at random. I
>wouldn't call that "as good as it can get...."
Well, the whole thread started about that patch floating around that does it
better than current "killing randomly" policy in kernel. Why it turned into
non-overcommit is better than overcommit is still unknown. :-)
-- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.- 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 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:37 EST