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

From: Jim Gettys (
Date: Mon Oct 09 2000 - 16:21:05 EST

> Sender:
> From: "Andi Kleen" <>
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:58:22 +0200
> To: Linus Torvalds <>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
> Andrea Arcangeli <>,
> Rik van Riel <>,
> Byron Stanoszek <>,
> MM mailing list <>,
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler
> -----
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 01:52:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > One thing we _can_ (and probably should do) is to do a per-user memory
> > pressure thing - we have easy access to the "struct user_struct" (every
> > process has a direct pointer to it), and it should not be too bad to
> > maintain a per-user "VM pressure" counter.
> >
> > Then, instead of trying to use heuristics like "does this process have
> > children" etc, you'd have things like "is this user a nasty user", which
> > is a much more valid thing to do and can be used to find people who fork
> > tons of processes that are mid-sized but use a lot of memory due to just
> > being many..
> Would not help much when "they" eat your memory by loading big bitmaps
> into the X server which runs as root (it seems there are many programs
> which are very good at this particular DOS ;)

This is generic to any server program, not unique to X.

Sounds like one needs in addition some mechanism for servers to "charge" clients for
consumption. X certainly knows on behalf of which connection resources
are created; the OS could then transfer this back to the appropriate client
(at least when on machine).

                                        - Jim

Jim Gettys
Technology and Corporate Development
Compaq Computer Corporation

- 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 - 21:00:13 EST