[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <457886B4.2030507@nortel.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:25:08 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting?
Jesper Juhl wrote:
> How does "oomthresh" and "oomadj" affect each other?
If memory consumption is less than "oomthresh", that process is simply
bypassed. (Equivalent to oomkilladj==OOM_DISABLE.) Otherwise, continue
processing as normal.
> Default "oomthresh" value for a new process is 0 (zero) I assume -
> right? If not, then I'd suggest that it should be.
Correct.
> What happens when a process fork()s? Does the child enherit the
> parents "oomthresh" value?
Currently it does not. This is to allow for different memory access
patterns by parent/child. And exec() wipes it as well.
> Would it make sense to make "oomthresh" apply to process groups
> instead of processes?
Hmm...it might make sense given that the point of the group is to manage
tasks together...but it would make accounting more tricky. Currently
it's just a very simple comparison of p->mm->total_vm against the
threshold in badness().
> What happens in the case where the OOM killer really, really needs to
> kill one or more processes since there is not a single drop of memory
> available, but all processes are below their configured thresholds?
Then the system wasn't properly engineered. <grin>
In this case you reboot.
Chris
-
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