Matthew Dillon wrote: > > How about this - add an 'importance' resource. The lower the number, > the more likely the process will be killed if the system runs out of > resources. We would also make fork automatically decrement the number > by one in the child. As far as I'm concerned, you could use the UID for this. ;^) -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lockups in 3.2R Ivan
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lockups in 3.2R Daniel C. Sobral
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lockups in 3.2R Alfred Perlstein
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lockups in 3.... Chuck Robey
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lockups i... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lock... Nate Williams
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lock... Matthew Dillon
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lock... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lock... Matthew Dillon
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lock... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lock... Wes Peters
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lock... Daniel C. Sobral
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lock... Chuck Robey
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lock... Matthew Dillon
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lock... Daniel C. Sobral
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lock... Matthew Dillon
- Sleeping in low memory situations (... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: Sleeping in low memory situatio... Nate Williams
- Re: Sleeping in low memory situatio... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: Sleeping in low memory situatio... Nate Williams
- Re: Out of swap handling and X lock... David Scheidt