On 04/01/2008, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk_at_phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > SIGDANGER is not what we need. > > What we need is an intelligent mechanism to tell applications what > the overall situation is, so that jemalloc and aware applications can > tune their usage pattern to the availability of physical and virtual > memory. > > Instead of the binary "SIGDANGER" indication we need a more gradual > state, at the very least three stats: "plenty", "getting a bit > tight" and "crunchtime". This makes memory management in the userland hideously and unnecessarily complicated. It's simpler to have SIGDANGER (meaning, free all you can) -> SIGTERM (terminate gracefully) -> SIGKILL (too late, I'm killing you anyway); and maybe a MIB in sysctl like ...vm.overcommit_action ='soft' being SIGDANGER->SIGTERM->SIGKILL and = 'hard' being SIGKILL, so the sysadmin at least has a choice IgorReceived on Fri Jan 04 2008 - 12:03:03 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:24 UTC