| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <48417FAE.7040103@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 18:41:18 +0200 From: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com> To: Chris Frey <cdfrey@...rsquare.net> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: OOM policy, overcommit control, and soft limits Chris Frey wrote: > I'm sure someone has thought of this before me. Does anything remotely > similar to this already exist? I've googled for OOM policy, but so far > all I've seen is Rusty Lynch's patch from 2003, and really, I want this > behaviour to happen when there is still a bit of memory left, so things > can be dealt with before they are OOM-level dire. Have you seen the OOM killer policy implemented in memory the resource controller? http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_25#head-450b26e12955b8035a05cf07b3f31c501ee4bfab BTW read the TODO comment in this commit log... ;-) http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=c7ba5c9e8176704bfac0729875fa62798037584d Maybe a possible solution could be to just run critical and non-critical applications in 2 different cgroups, using different memory policies. Anyway, userspace OOM handling would surely permit to implement more interesting features. -Andrea -- 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