Re: [PATCH] OOM handling

[Martin Dalecki]

Michel Wilson wrote:
> 
> > relative ages.  The major flaw in my code is that a sufficiently
> > long-lived
> > process becomes virtually immortal, even if it happens to spring a serious
> > leak after this time - the flaw in yours is that system processes
> 
> I think this could easily be fixed if you'd 'chop off' the runtime at a
> certain point:
> 
> if(runtime > something_big)
>         runtime = something_big;
> 
> This would of course need some tuning. The only thing i don't like about
> this is that it's a kind of 'magical value', but i suppose it's not a very
> good idea to make this configurable, right?

Then after some time runtime becomes allmost irrelevant.
You are basically for what I call normalization by the total 
system uptime.