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  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]
Date:	Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:19:52 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <>
Cc:	"" <>,,,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] oom-kill: add lowmem usage aware oom kill handling

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:53:55 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists