lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler

On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> > No. It's only needed if your OOM algorithm is so crappy that
> > it might end up killing init by mistake.
>
> The algorithm you posted on the list in this thread will kill init if
> on 4Mbyte machine without swap init is large 3 Mbytes and you execute
> a task that grows over 1M.

i think the OOM algorithm should not kill processes that have
child-processes, it should first kill child-less 'leaves'. Killing a
process that has child processes likely results in unexpected behavior of
those child-processes. (and equals to effective killing of those
child-processes as well.)

But this mechanizm can be abused (a malicious memory hog can create a
child-process just to avoid the OOM-killer) - but there are ways to avoid
this, eg. to add all the 'MM badness' points to children? Ie. a child
which has MM-abuser parent(s) will definitely be killed first.

Ingo

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans