lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting?
> 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've just introduced a deadlock. What happens if nobody is over that
predicted memory and the kernel uses more resource ?
>
> 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.

That is why we have no-overcommit support. Now there is an argument for
a meaningful rlimit-as to go with it, and together I think they do what
you really need.

Alan
-
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: 2006-12-08 00:17    [W:0.047 / U:5.820 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site