"Mike A. Harris" <mharris@meteng.on.ca> said:
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Derek Martin wrote:
> >> the OOM condition 'logically'. That is the problem I believe, is
> >> that the kernel needs to try and determine using logic which
> >> process is the REAL bad guy. Next to impossible...
> >Yeah I get it now. Though based on my (admittedly limited)
> >understanding of the way the kernel currently decides to kill processes,
> >that doesn't seem like it's any _worse_ a scenario, just not any better.
> >
> >> I'm dreaming up a daemon written in C for speed that:
> >>
> >> 1) Reads a config file of legal possible swapfile locations and
> >> min/max sizes it can use, etc..
> >> 2) Has configurable high/low watermarks to determine when to
> >> create new swap space.
It is _much_ easier just to set up said swap space in the first place. No
kernel mods needed at all.
[...]
> In my case, a 'dynswap daemon' would give me a larger window of
> time in which to 'catch' an OOM situation and use human brain
> logic to kill processes. I could code the daemon to play a wav
> file when a swap file is added, another when another swap is
> added - increasing the 'defcon' number or alarmingness each time,
> to warn me trouble is near. [...]
Run a (tiny) daemon which periodically checks free space, and warns you
when running low.
-- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616- 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 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 21:00:09 EST