Re: killed: out of swap

[David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost>]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 08:31, Johnny Billquist <bqt%softjar.se@localhost> wrote:
>
> On 2022-06-15 06:57, Michael van Elst wrote:
> > bqt%softjar.se@localhost (Johnny Billquist) writes:
> >
> >> I don't see any realistic way of doing anything with that.
> >> It's basically the first process that tries to allocate another page
> >> when there are no more. There are no other processes at that moment in
> >> time that have the problem, so why should any of them be considered?
> >
> > They might be the reason for the memory shortage. You can prefer large
> > processes as victims or protect system services to keep the system
> > managable.
>
> So when one process tries to grow, you'd kill a process that currently
> have no issues in running? Which means you might end up killing a lot of
> non-problematic processes because of one runaway process? Seems to me to
> not be a good decision.

As opposed to the process which had a successful malloc some time ago
and is running without issues, and is just about to try to use some of
its existing allocation?

Both options are wrong in some cases. Having a way to influence the
order in which processes are chosen would seem to be the best way to
end up with a better outcome. The existing behaviour should remain an
option, but (at least for me) it would not be the one chosen

David