lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Memory overcommit
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
It's _not_ special to X.

Almost all applications which uses many dynamica libraries can be affected by this,
total_vm. And, as I explained to Vedran, multi-threaded program like Java can easily
increase total_vm without using many anon_rss.
And it's the reason I hate overcommit_memory. size of VM doesn't tell anything.


Thanks,
-Kame



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-28 07:25    [W:0.106 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site