From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 19:05:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 19:05:08 -0400 Received: from oe18.law11.hotmail.com ([64.4.16.122]:58638 "EHLO hotmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 19:04:55 -0400 X-Originating-IP: [24.10.60.231] From: "Dan Mann" To: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: VM nuisance Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 19:05:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2001 23:05:02.0627 (UTC) FILETIME=[37C28F30:01C12383] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rik Said: > > No. The problem is that whenever I change something to > > the OOM killer I get flamed. > > > > Both by the people for whom the OOM killer kicks in too > > early and by the people for whom the OOM killer now doesn't > > kick in. > > > > I haven't got the faintest idea how to come up with an OOM > > killer which does the right thing for everybody. Would there be a way that you could have a proc interface to adjust the sensitivity of the OOM killer so that users could raise or lower the threshold that causes OOM killer activation? Hopefully you wouldn't get any flak for that unless users start blaming you for their own settings :-) Most people would just use the standard setting that you provide...but others that felt the need could change it on their system. Dan