On 23 May, Jesse Pollard wrote:
[...]
>
> I think it really depends on the other load on the system. If the eatmem
> program is the only one running at the time the system goes OOM it will
> correctly identify it as the hog. The more other processes (non eatmem)
> that are active, the more likely that the other process will be killed.
>
> Mine survived, but I have hard limits available on a test system.
> It doesn't survive if I run it as root, or if I run it without limits.
>
No, I don't think that this is actually true... When testing with 2.3,
I knew I was going to blow my system, so I shut down as many daemons as
possible and unmounted as many filesystems as possible. When testing
with 2.2, all I shut down was X, but none of the daemons.
So with 2.2 the system was slightly more loaded and yet it consistently
behaved better.
I started this thread because of a runaway debconf perlscript which
caused my computer to lock up due to OOM -- in 2.2, the same program
just segfaults after using up all available memory.
That is repeatable for both the 2.3 and 2.2 kernels, however it's not a
very good test that others can use because I guess it depends too much
on the state of my Debian installation, and you'll need Debian in the
first place to try it.
Hence I undested 'eatmem', which is an artificial way to achieve a
similar effect.
[...]
>
> The only versions of Unix that would survive are those that cannot overcommit.
Ouch, let's not get started on that thread again -- those were rather
long & heated discussions :-)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jesse I Pollard, II
> Email: pollard@cats-chateau.net
>
> Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:11 EST