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?
Alan wrote:

>>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 ?

Based on the discussion with Jesper, we fall back to regular behaviour.
(Or possibly hang or reboot, if we added another switch).

>>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.

No overcommit only protects the system as a whole, not any particular
processes. The purpose of this is to protect specific daemons from
being killed when the system as a whole is short on memory. Same
rationale as for oomadj, but different knob to twiddle.

Chris
-
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 00:25    [W:0.039 / U:2.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site