lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting?
From
Date
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 12:30 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> The kernel currently has a way to adjust the oom-killer score via
> /proc/<pid>/oomadj.
>
> However, to adjust this effectively requires knowledge of the scores of
> all the other processes on the system.
>
> I'd like to float an idea (which we've implemented and been using for
> some time) where the semantics are slightly different:
>
> We add a new "oom_thresh" member to the task struct.
> We introduce a new proc entry "/proc/<pid>/oomthresh" to control it.
>
> The "oom-thresh" value maps to the max expected memory consumption for
> that process. As long as a process uses less memory than the specified
> threshold, then it is immune to the oom-killer.

You would need to specify the measure of memory used by your process;
see the (still not resolved) RSS debate.

> On an embedded platform this allows the designer to engineer the system
> and protect critical apps based on their expected memory consumption.
> If one of those apps goes crazy and starts chewing additional memory
> then it becomes vulnerable to the oom killer while the other apps remain
> protected.
>
> If a patch for the above feature was submitted, would there be any
> chance of getting it included? Maybe controlled by a config option?


-
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: 2006-12-07 20:25    [W:0.047 / U:44.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site