Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:28:34 -0400 | From | Chris Friesen <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes |
| |
Robert Love wrote: > On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 13:48, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > >>Also, when the OOM condition is triggered I'd like the system to >>reboot, but first try for a short while to unmount filesystems cleanly. >> >>Any chance of those things?
<snip>
> I do like all of this, however, and want to see some different OOM > killers.
One thing that we've done, and that others may find useful, is to allow processes to become immune to the oom-killer as long as they stay under a certain amount of memory allocated.
We added a syscall that specifies a certain number of pages of memory. As long as the process' memory utilization remains under that amount, the oom-killer will not kill it.
In our case we are on a mostly-embedded system, and have a pretty good idea what will be running. This lets us engineer the critical apps to be immune, while still allowing memory to be freed up by killing non-critical applications.
Chris
-- Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10 Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986 Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com
- 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/
| |