Re: VM: add would_have_oomkilled sysctl

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:21:20AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
 > On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Dave Jones wrote:
 > 
 > > At various times in the past, we've had reports where users have been
 > > convinced that the oomkiller was too heavy handed. I added this sysctl
 > > mostly as a knob for them to see that the kernel really doesn't do much better
 > > without killing something.
 > > 
 > 
 > The page allocator expects that the oom killer will kill something to free 
 > memory so it takes a temporary timeout and then retries the allocation 
 > indefinitely.  We never oom kill unless we are going to retry 
 > indefinitely, otherwise it wouldn't be worthwhile.
 > 
 > That said, the only time the oom killer doesn't actually do something is 
 > when it detects an exiting thread that will hopefully free memory soon or 
 > when it detects an eligible thread that has already been oom killed and 
 > we're waiting for it to exit.  So this patch will result in an endless 
 > series of unratelimited printk's.
 > 
 > Not sure that's very helpful.

It's an old patch, and the oom-killer heuristics have improved since then,
as this didn't used to be the case.  Regardless, I'll just drop it from Fedora.

thanks,

	Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/