> On Wed, 7 May 1997, James Mastros wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't killing off the process that has the lowest CPU use be best
> > (other than processes 1-10, which are reserved, and currently all not
> > terminatable without dire consiqunces), on the theory that it wasn't doing
> > anything anyway? That should atleast give you enough memory to kill -HUP
> > others instead of just destroying them.
>
> I think this has been discussed before and all the methods brought
> up were found to be inadequate for common usage. Someone was always
> able to find a situation in which the algorithm in question didn't
> work as it was supposed to.
Well, since we're talking about doing controversial and rather ugly
things, why not just throw in a kernel configuration option to handle
this? The "original" method, "nuke all processes with more than x
children", etc.
I'll gladly admit that isn't a great idea and is rather ugly, though.
-- Good government. Good government. Sit. Stay.