Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:40:55 -0400 (EDT) | From | Gerhard Mack <> | Subject | Re: 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 <pochini@shiny.it> > To: Helge Hafting <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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 cnn.com 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
-- Gerhard Mack
gmack@innerfire.net
<>< 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 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/
|  |