Re: [patch] memory hog protection

Arjan van de Ven
2000-04-24T07:30:30Z

In article <3903D353.D98969B7@mandrakesoft.com> you wrote:
>> the patch below changes the mm->swap_cnt assignment to put
>> memory hogs at a disadvantage to programs with a smaller

> There are many classes of problems where preserving interactivity at the
> expense of a resource hog is a bad not good idea. Think of obscure
> situations like database servers for example :)

Is it really that bad to have a sysctl (or other /proc thingy) named
"boostinteractive" or whatever, and means that the owner of the machine
wants to favor interactive processes over memory/cpu hogs.
This can be used for
1) Rick's MM pressure stuff
2) The scheduler
3) The OOM selection algorithm

Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven