Re: killed: out of swap

[Johnny Billquist <bqt%softjar.se@localhost>]

On 2022-06-15 06:57, Michael van Elst wrote:
> bqt%softjar.se@localhost (Johnny Billquist) writes:
>
> > I don't see any realistic way of doing anything with that.
> > It's basically the first process that tries to allocate another page
> > when there are no more. There are no other processes at that moment in
> > time that have the problem, so why should any of them be considered?
>
> They might be the reason for the memory shortage. You can prefer large
> processes as victims or protect system services to keep the system
> managable.

So when one process tries to grow, you'd kill a process that currently 
have no issues in running? Which means you might end up killing a lot of 
non-problematic processes because of one runaway process? Seems to me to 
not be a good decision.

  Johnny

--
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt%softjar.se@localhost             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol