From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:35:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:35:17 -0400 Received: from 64-42-29-14.atgi.net ([64.42.29.14]:31504 "HELO mail.clouddancer.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:35:08 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: WANTED: Re: VM lockup with 2.4.8 / 2.4.8pre8 In-Reply-To: <9lc0ek$l5k$1@ns1.clouddancer.com> In-Reply-To: <20010814220545.D31070@pasky.ji.cz> ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 02:55:42PM -0300 <9lc0ek$l5k$1@ns1.clouddancer.com> Reply-To: klink@clouddancer.com Message-Id: <20010815193521.4DDE8783F5@mail.clouddancer.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:35:21 -0700 (PDT) From: klink@clouddancer.com (Colonel) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In clouddancer.list.kernel, you wrote: > >Why we are giving so big importance to root processes? Yes, they are >important, but they are even more likely to flood our memory, because >limits don't apply to them. I propose to just divide their badness >by 2, not by 4. Gee, lets punish everybody in case of one bad app... >I also propose to half badness of processes with pid < 1000 - those >processes are usually also important, because they are called during >boot-time and they usually handle important system affairs. The belief that boot started processes remain under a pid < 1000 is flawed. Simple example: the postfix mail server. -- Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ... I'm afraid I can't do that."