Messages in this thread | | | From | Al Boldi <> | Subject | Re: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting? | Date | Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:58:29 +0300 |
| |
Alan wrote: > > On an embedded platform this allows the designer to engineer the system > > and protect critical apps based on their expected memory consumption. > > If one of those apps goes crazy and starts chewing additional memory > > then it becomes vulnerable to the oom killer while the other apps remain > > protected. > > That is why we have no-overcommit support.
Alan, I think you know that this isn't really true, due to shared-libs.
> Now there is an argument for > a meaningful rlimit-as to go with it, and together I think they do what > you really need.
The problem with rlimit is that it works per process. Tuning this by hand may be awkward and/or wasteful. What we need is to rlimit on a global basis, by calculating an upperlimit dynamically, such as to avoid overcommit/OOM.
Thanks!
-- Al
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |