lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Memory overcommit
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:

> > If you have OOM situation and Xorg is the first, that means it's leaking
> > memory badly and the system is probably already frozen/FUBAR. Killing
> > krunner in that situation wouldn't do any good. From a user perspective,
> > nothing changes, system is still FUBAR and (s)he would probably reboot
> > cursing linux in the process.
> >
>
> It depends on what you're running, we need to be able to have the option
> of protecting very large tasks on production servers. Imagine if "test"
> here is actually a critical application that we need to protect, its
> not solely mlocked anonymous memory, but still kill if it is leaking
> memory beyond your approximate 2.5GB. How do you do that when using rss
> as the baseline?

As I wrote repeatedly,

- OOM-Killer itselfs is bad thing, bad situation.
- The kernel can't know the program is bad or not. just guess it.
- Then, there is no "correct" OOM-Killer other than fork-bomb killer.
- User has a knob as oom_adj. This is very strong.

Then, there is only "reasonable" or "easy-to-understand" OOM-Kill.
"Current biggest memory eater is killed" sounds reasonable, easy to
understand. And if total_vm works well, overcommit_guess should catch it.
Please improve overcommit_guess if you want to stay on total_vm.


Thanks,
-Kame



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-30 00:53    [W:0.183 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site