Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:17:41 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: Memory overcommit |
| |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> All kernel engineers know "than expected or not" can be never known to the kernel. > So, oom_adj workaround is used now. (by some special users.) > OOM Killer itself is also a workaround, too. > "No kill" is the best thing but we know there are tend to be memory-leaker on bad > systems and all systems in this world are not perfect. >
Right, and historically that has been addressed by considering total_vm and adjusting it with oom_adj so that we can identify memory leaking tasks through user-defined criteria.
> Yes, some more trustable values other than vmsize/rss/time are appriciated. > I wonder recent memory consumption speed can be an another key value. >
Sounds very logical.
> Anyway, current bahavior of "killing X" is a bad thing. > We need some fixes. >
You can easily protect X with OOM_DISABLE, as you know. I don't think we need any X-specific heuristics added to the kernel, it looks like the special cases have already polluted badness() enough.
| |