[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4578A1F1.7050907@nortel.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:21:21 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting?
Alan wrote:
>>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've just introduced a deadlock. What happens if nobody is over that
> predicted memory and the kernel uses more resource ?
Based on the discussion with Jesper, we fall back to regular behaviour.
(Or possibly hang or reboot, if we added another switch).
>>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.
> That is why we have no-overcommit support. Now there is an argument for
> a meaningful rlimit-as to go with it, and together I think they do what
> you really need.
No overcommit only protects the system as a whole, not any particular
processes. The purpose of this is to protect specific daemons from
being killed when the system as a whole is short on memory. Same
rationale as for oomadj, but different knob to twiddle.
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