[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Killing/balancing processes when overcommited
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Giuliano Pochini wrote:

> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:02:21 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Giuliano Pochini <>
> To: Helge Hafting <>
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Killing/balancing processes when overcommited
> > This is hard to setup, and has the some weaknesses:
> > 1. You worry only about apps you _know_. But the guy who got
> > his netscape or make -j killed will rename his
> > copies of these apps to something else so your carefully
> > set up oom killer won't know what is running.
> > (How much memory is the "mybrowser" app supposed to use?)
> > Or he'll get another software package that you haven't heard of.
> >
> > 2. Lots and lots of people running netscapes using
> > only 70M each will still be too much. Think of
> > a university with xterms and then they all
> > goes to or something for the latest news
> > about some large event.
> >
> > Even nice well-behaved apps
> > is bad when there is unusually many of them. [...]
> That's obvious. The point is that the sysadmin should be
> able to hint the oom killer as much as possible.
> The current linux/mm/oom_kill.c:badness() takes into account
> many factors. The sysadmin should be able to affect the
> badness calculation on process/user/something basis.

I think what is really needed is a daemon to handle complex descisions
like that with the kernel OOM killer as a fall back.


Gerhard Mack

<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.

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:0.035 / U:0.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site