Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:14:50 -0800 (PST) | | From | David Rientjes <> | | Subject | Re: 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.
|  |