lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Improving OOM killer
    On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Rik van Riel wrote:

    > > Keep in mind that we're in the oom killer here, though. So we're out of
    > > memory and we need to kill something; should Apache, Oracle, and postgres
    > > not be penalized for their cost of running by factoring in something like
    > > this?
    >
    > No, they should not.
    >
    > The goal of the OOM killer is to kill some process, so the
    > system can continue running and automatically become available
    > again for whatever workload the system was running.
    >
    > Killing the parent process of one of the system daemons does
    > not achieve that goal, because you now caused a service to no
    > longer be available.
    >

    The system daemon wouldn't be killed, though. You're right that this
    heuristic would prefer the system daemon slightly more as a result of the
    forkbomb penalty, but the oom killer always attempts to sacrifice a child
    with a seperate mm before killing the selected task. Since the forkbomb
    heuristic only adds up those children with seperate mms, we're guaranteed
    to not kill the daemon itself.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-02-04 23:17    [W:0.023 / U:0.832 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site