[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0901141651540.22699@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:54:09 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
cc: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [why oom_adj does not work] Re: Linux killed Kenny, bastard!
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> This does not work if processes are short-living and are spawned by the
> parent on demand. If processes have different priority in regards to oom
> condition, this problem can not be solved with existing interfaces
> without changing the application. So effectively there is no solution.
>
Wrong, you can change how the application is forked. Either immediately
adjust /proc/$!/oom_adj or use the adjustment inheritance property and
change /proc/$$/oom_adj to the desired value prior to forking. Thanks.
--
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