[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201002050835.30550.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:35:30 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@...e.cz>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: Improving OOM killer
Am Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2010 22:39:08 schrieb David Rientjes:
> > If we really want kernel to detect forkbombs (*), we'd have to establish
> > completely separate infrastructure for that (with its own knobs for tuning
> > and possibilities of disabling it completely).
> >
>
> That's what we're trying to do, we can look at the shear number of
> children that the parent has forked and check for it to be over a certain
> "forkbombing threshold" (which, yes, can be tuned from userspace), the
> uptime of those children, their resident set size, etc., to attempt to
> find a sane heuristic that penalizes them.
Wouldn't it be saner to have a selection by user, so that users that
are over the overcommit limit are targeted?
Regards
Oliver
--
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