On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Martin Langhoff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Can't we just _close it nicely_? >> >> When you are about to get into OOM? > > Early on so we avoid OOM for most cases. Right now our OOM use cases > have nothing to do with misbehaved activities. > > Once you're in "about to get into OOM", sugar-shell is unlikely to get > many cycles (and python is a bad lang to try handling this). If you > can seed the OOM scores of the process early on, you have a chance > that OOM will kill a reasonably "correct" one. (Not sure what the > state of play is with seeding the OOM scores from userland). > >> point we should have given the activities and/or the user the option >> to avoid this situation. > > I think it's the only thing we can reasonably do. And [if possible], > seed OOM scores. > > When things get tight, only the kernel has a standing chance to run code.
Has anyone looked into the Android Low Memory Killer kernel patch? Google has already addressed this limitation with Android and done a relatively good job at it. Their stuff is fit to run in 128MB of memory which is much less than an XO has. Jon _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
