Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Really the whole oom_kill process seems bass-ackwards to me. I can't in my mind
> > logically justify annihilating large-VM processes that have been running for
> > days or weeks instead of just returning ENOMEM to a process that just started
> > up.
>
> How do you return an out of memory error to a C program that is out of memory
> due to a stack growth fault. There is actually not a language construct for it
Simple, you reclaim a few of those uptodate buffers. My testing here has
resulting in more of my system daemons getting killed than anything else, and
it never once has solved the actual problem of simple memory pressure from
apps reading/writing to disk and disk cache not releasing buffers quick
enough.
> > It would be nice to give immunity to certain uids, or better yet, just turn the
> > damn thing off entirely. I've already hacked that in...errr, out.
>
> Eventually you have to kill something or the machine deadlocks. The oom killing
> doesnt kick in until that point. So its up to you how you like your errors.
I beg to differ. If you tell me that a machine that looks like this:
[dledford@monster dledford]$ free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 1017800 1014808 2992 0 73644 796392
-/+ buffers/cache: 144772 873028
Swap: 0 0 0
[dledford@monster dledford]$
is in need of killing sshd, I'll claim you are smoking some nice stuff ;-)
--Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> http://people.redhat.com/dledford Please check my web site for aic7xxx updates/answers before e-mailing me about problems - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 21:00:18 EST