Re: killed: out of swap

[Johnny Billquist <bqt%softjar.se@localhost>]

On 2022-06-15 11:09, David Brownlee wrote:
> 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?

That is speculation, which is my problem here. You are trading a known 
requester of non-existant memory for speculation that another process 
*might* want non-existant memory.

> 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

I (obviously) disagree. :-)

  Johnny

--
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt%softjar.se@localhost             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol