linux-kernel - Re: OOM in 2.6.19-rc*

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0611112127490.28908@gockel.physik3.uni-rostock.de>
Date:	Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:38:05 +0100 (CET)
From:	Tim Schmielau <tim@...sik3.uni-rostock.de>
To:	Christian Kujau <evil@...ouse.de>
cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: OOM in 2.6.19-rc*

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006, Christian Kujau wrote:

> I think I'm more interested as to why the OOM killer seems to kill innocent
> apps at random. I can imagine that it's not easy for the kernel to tell which
> userland-application is using up too much memory. Hm, egrep -r "OOM|ut of
> memory" Documentation/    does not reveal much :(

A look at /proc/*/oom_score might shed some light on the "at random" part.
I.e., doing
  for job in /proc/[0-9]* ; do \
    echo -e "`cat $job/oom_score` \t $job \t `head -c50 $job/cmdline`"; \
  done | sort -n
the last process listed is considered the biggest memory hog of the 
moment (Of course, this still does not tell _why_).

Tim
-
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/