[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AE78B8F.9050201@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:08:47 +0100
From: Vedran Furač <vedran.furac@...il.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
minchan.kim@...il.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Memory overcommit
David Rientjes wrote:
> There's advantages to either approach, but it depends on the contextual
> goal of the oom killer when it's called: kill a rogue task that is
> allocating more memory than expected,
But it is wrong at counting allocated memory!
Come on, it kills /usr/lib/icedove/run-mozilla.sh. Parent, a shell
script, instead of its child(s) which allocated memory. Look, "test"
allocates some (0.1GB) memory, and you have:
% cat test.sh
#!/bin/sh
./test&
./test&
./test&
./test
% perl check_badness.pl|sort -n|g test
26511 7884 test
26511 7885 test
26511 7886 test
26511 7887 test
53994 7883 test.sh
// great, so test.sh "is" the bad ass, ok, emulate OOMK:
% kill -9 7883
// did we kill "a rogue task"
% perl check_badness.pl|sort -n|g test
26511 7884 test
26511 7885 test
26511 7886 test
26511 7887 test
// nooo, they are still alive and eating our memory!
QED by newbie. ;)
> or kill a task that will free the most memory.
.
--
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