Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: OOM: A Success Report | | From | Robert Love <> | | Date | 07 Jul 2001 19:01:31 -0400 |
| |
On 08 Jul 2001 00:40:51 +0000, José Luis Domingo López wrote: > <snip> > Another interesting thing I noted is the fact (as shown by Robert Love's > message) that oom_kill() seems to kill processes without taking into > account whether the selected process is a full application or just one > of more "threads" in some application. This happened to me when OpenOffice > went crazy and OOM hit, but instead of killing the parent process, it just > killed one of the children and, though OOM recoverd memory, OpenOffice > ended useless. Maybe OOM should have killed the parent in the first place.
for whatever reason, i did not even notice this. i guess because evolution itself exited, for some reason (normally if a single component dies, say mail, it just puts a dialog up saying `mail component died').
i think there may be problems with determining what the parent app is, or if there is a parent app. killing the PPID may not always be the answer (but in many cases, like what you gave, is a very good answer).
> Final question: a 2.4.4 kernel with no swap activated, and OOM hit (thanks > to a purposedly executed ls ../*/../*/..) takes much more time to recover > than the same setup but with swap activated (exact numbers missing, > sorry). Moreover, when swap is of, the hard disk goes crazy as if it where > using swap, when in fact it isn't). Is this expected behaviour ?
i think i recall hearing about this, and the reply was something to the effect of `its known but not wanted'.
> If someone wants some test with real numbers, please let me know and > though I'm on vacation, I'll go where I work to make some test :)
i forgot to give any stats from my incident. i couldnt access the console (the machine was almost locked, the mouse barely moved), so i dont have any hard numbers.
from my gnome applets <g> i see load was approaching 10, memory was (or was close to) 100%, and swap was growing close to 100%.
this is kernel 2.4.6-ac2, x86, with 256MB memory, 768MB swap.
after the incident memory was done to the bare load with only 30MB of cache and swap was only at about 20MB use.
i restarted X but not the system, and all is well.
-- Robert M. Love rml at ufl.edu rml at tech9.net
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |