[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c6c48fdf7f746add49bb9cc058b513ae.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:25:43 +0900 (JST)
From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
vedran.furac@...il.com,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"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
Alan Cox wrote:
>> panic_on_oom=1 works enough well.For Vedran's, overcommit memory will
>> work
>> well. But oom-killer kills very bad process if not tweaked.
>> So, I think some improvement should be done.
>
> That is why we have the per process oom_adj values - because for nearly
> fifteen years someone comes along and says "actually in my environment
> the right choice is ..."
>
> Ultimately it is policy. The kernel simply can't read minds.
>
If so, all heuristics other than vm_size should be purged, I think.
...Or victim should be just determined by the class of application
user sets. oom_adj other than OOM_DISABLE, searching victim process
by black magic are all garbage.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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