On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:

> 
> :But I have a valid point: can we do something better than posting a SIGKILL
> :to the largest process?
> :
> : Brian Fundakowski Feldman      _ __ ___ ____  ___ ___ ___  
> : green@FreeBSD.org                   _ __ ___ | _ ) __|   \ 
> 
>     We could have the ability to mark processes as being more or less
>     preferable as kill candidates.  I'm not sure I really care anymore,
>     though... there is so much disk space available now that it is fairly
>     difficult to run the system out of swap space.  I don't think I've 
>     run any of my personal systems out of swap space for at least a year 
>     now!  Usually the biggest process is the one responsible (note: MFS
>     processes do not count, and they are immune from being killed).

We need some kind of hysteresis... a process took up all my swap left,
got killed, then my X server got killed too. I'd like something that says
"I don't want process X killed unless it has run away with over Y of memory."
But I'd also like to see FreeBSD not kill two processes to prevent a deadlock.

> 
> 					-Matt
> 					Matthew Dillon 
> 					<dillon@backplane.com>
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> 

 Brian Fundakowski Feldman      _ __ ___ ____  ___ ___ ___  
 green@FreeBSD.org                   _ __ ___ | _ ) __|   \ 
     FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!        _ __ | _ \._ \ |) |
       http://www.FreeBSD.org/              _ |___/___/___/