linux-kernel - Re: tmpfs and the OOM killer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:27:00 -0300
From:	Pedro <linux_user@...cksohn.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tmpfs and the OOM killer

On Wednesday 11 April 2007 16:48, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 02:23:31AM -0300, Pedro wrote:
> >   After suffering some days from a not|mis configured tmpfs,
> >
> >   As the OOM killer is not Posix,
> >
> >   Better than to kill processes would be to resize tmpfs, to use tmpfs
> > empty space.
>
> Will not work, because tmpfs does not use any memory for unused space. If
> you don't believe me, simply create a large file on your tmpfs, then check
> free memory, then remove the file and check free memory again.
>
> So your problem is not caused by the empty space on tmpfs, but either by
> too much space used on tmpfs or by your application using too much memory.
>
...
>
> If you cannot control your application's memory usage, you'll have to
> finely tune the overcommit_ratio.
>
> Regards,
> Willy

  You are right.

  But now I have two questions:

  1) Why is tmpfs total space fixed if at the check moment does not exist 
sufficient memory?

  2) How should an application be written to not be killed by OOM?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/