[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] fix spurious OOM kills
    Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 22:19 +0100, Martin MOKREJŠ wrote:
    >>>It should only kill RNAsubopt and bash and touch nothing else.
    >>Yes, that's true, this patch has helped. Actually the other xterm got
    >>closed, but that's because bash is the controlling application of it.
    >>I believe that's expected.
    >>I'd prefer to get only RNAsubopt killed. ;)
    > Ok. To kill only RNAsubopt it might be neccecary to refine the criteria
    > in the whom to kill selection.

    Why can't the algorithm first find the asking for memory now.
    When found, kernel should kill first it's children, wait some time,
    then kill this process if still exists (it might exit itself when children
    get closed).

    You have said it's safer to kill that to send ENOMEM as happens
    in 2.4, but I still don't undertand why kernel first doesn't send
    ENOMEM, and only if that doesn't help it can start after those 5 seconds
    OOM killer, and try to kill the very same application.
    I don't get the idea why to kill immediately.

    As it has happened to me in the past, that random OOM selection has killed
    sshd or init, I believe the algorithm should be improved to not to try
    to kill these. First of all, sshd is well tested, so it will never
    be source of memleaks. Second, if the algorithm would really insist on
    killing either of these, I personally prefer it rather do clean reboot
    than a system in a state without sshd. I have to get to the console.
    Actually, it's several kilometers for me. :(

    >>And still, there weren't
    >>that many changes to memory management between 2.6.9-rc1 and 2.6.9-rc2. ;)
    >>I can test those VM changes separately, if someone would provide me with
    >>those changes split into 2 or 3 patchsets.
    > The oom trouble was definitly not invented there. The change between
    > 2.6.9-rc1 and rc2 is justs triggering your special testcase.
    > Other testcases show the problems with earlier 2.6 kernels too.

    It's a pitty no-one has time to at least figure out why those changes have
    exposed this stupid random part of the algorithm. Before 2.6.9-rc2
    OOM killer was also started in my tests, but it worked deterministically.
    I wouldn't prefer extra algorithm to check what we kill now, I'd rather look
    why we kill randomly since -rc2.

    Of course your patch is still helpfull, sure.

    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 14:08    [W:0.022 / U:242.288 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site