On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In this scheme apps aren't asked. Obviously we should terminate the >> least-recently-used apps from the user who has been inactive the >> longest. > > Well I am sure the kernel people think differently about that. Why? Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's the best heuristic ever conceived. To a large extent, I think we need to make some rough attempts and see what actually works in the field. I'm actually not opposed to simply having TerminateSafe=true be pushed down into the kernel by the userspace, and not have it ever SIGKILL anything. We could dynamically adjust the oom_adj value based on how recently the user interacted with an app, etc. But at the same time, the shell should be involved if something is terminated; we need to somehow explain to the user what happened. This will probably need to go down into heuristics - is it that the user is running too many apps? Or that one app is using too much? Etc. _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
