lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.112 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site