Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler

From: Rik van Riel (
Date: Mon Oct 09 2000 - 13:14:02 EST

On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Marco Colombo wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> [...]
> > They are niced because the user thinks them a bit less
> > important.
> Please don't, this assumption is quite wrong. I use nice just to
> be 'nice' to other users. I can run my *important* CPU hog
> simulation nice +10 in order to let other people get more CPU
> when the need it.

In that case the time the process has been running and the
CPU time used will save the process if it's been running for
a long time.

Please read the /entire/ algorithm before making rash
conclusions like this.

If nice is used for important, long-running tasks, the fact
that they are long-running will save them (and be honest,
would you really care if a simulation would be killed after
5 minutes? it's only inconvenient if it gets killed after
a few hours...)

> But if you put the logic "niced == not important" somewhere into
> the kernel, nobody will use nice anymore. I'd rather give a
> bonus to niced processes.

This doesn't make ANY sense at all. The objective is to destroy
the least amount of work, which means giving a bonus to processes
which have used a lot of CPU time already ... regardless of nice

> all. But my point here is that you do, and you take it as an hint for
> process importance as percieved by the user that run it, and I believe
> it's just wrong guessing).

If you have a better algorithm, feel free to send patches.



"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
       -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:12 EST