[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: Killing/balancing processes when overcommited

    On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Giuliano Pochini wrote:
    > It's not difficult to make the kerner choose the right processes
    > to kill. It's impossible.

    Not quite. But it's expensive. It adds 4 bytes per task, plus a second
    OOM killer.

    > Imagine that when it goes oom the system stops and asks you what
    > processes have to be killed. What do you kill ?

    Rather whom would you ask?

    > Probably we do need an oomd that the sysadmin can configure as he likes.

    That's bad, it could get killed. ;-)

    Mostly the mem eaters are those who hang in an malloc() deadloop.

    char *x = NULL;

    * We need this variable, so if we don't get it, we reallocate it
    * regardless of what happened.
    do {
    x = malloc(X_SIZE);
    } while (!x);

    That's possibly a candidate.

    So if we just count how often per second that stubborn process uses
    malloc(), you'll catch the right guy most of the time. If you don't get
    a process that's over the threshold, do usual OOM killing...

    --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .-
    --/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-
    .- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.-

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:19.017 / U:0.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site