linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] oom-kill: add lowmem usage aware oom kill handling

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20100126161952.ee267d1c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:19:52 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, rientjes@...gle.com,
	minchan.kim@...il.com,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] oom-kill: add lowmem usage aware oom kill handling

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:53:55 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:

> > Hardly anyone will know to enable
> > it so the feature won't get much testing and this binary decision
> > fractures the testing effort.  It would be much better if we can get
> > everyone running the same code.  I mean, if there are certain workloads
> > on certain machines with which the oom-killer doesn't behave correctly
> > then fix it!
> Yes, I think you're right. But "breaking current behaviro of our servers!"
> arguments kills all proposal to this area and this oom-killer or vmscan is
> a feature should be tested by real users. (I'll write fork-bomb detector
> and RSS based OOM again.)

Well don't break their servers then ;)

What I'm not understanding is: why is it not possible to improve the
behaviour on the affected machines without affecting the behaviour on
other machines?

What are these "servers" to which you refer?  x86_32 servers, I assume
- the patch shouldn't affect 64-bit machines.  Why don't they also want
this treatment and in what way does the patch "break" them?

--
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/