[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1165519292.14110.2.camel@lappy>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:21:32 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting?
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 12:30 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> The kernel currently has a way to adjust the oom-killer score via
> /proc/<pid>/oomadj.
>
> However, to adjust this effectively requires knowledge of the scores of
> all the other processes on the system.
>
> I'd like to float an idea (which we've implemented and been using for
> some time) where the semantics are slightly different:
>
> We add a new "oom_thresh" member to the task struct.
> We introduce a new proc entry "/proc/<pid>/oomthresh" to control it.
>
> The "oom-thresh" value maps to the max expected memory consumption for
> that process. As long as a process uses less memory than the specified
> threshold, then it is immune to the oom-killer.
You would need to specify the measure of memory used by your process;
see the (still not resolved) RSS debate.
> On an embedded platform this allows the designer to engineer the system
> and protect critical apps based on their expected memory consumption.
> If one of those apps goes crazy and starts chewing additional memory
> then it becomes vulnerable to the oom killer while the other apps remain
> protected.
>
> If a patch for the above feature was submitted, would there be any
> chance of getting it included? Maybe controlled by a config option?
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists