[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201002102229.24448.l.lunak@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:29:24 +0100
From: Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@...e.cz>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.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>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: Improving OOM killer
On Wednesday 10 of February 2010, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 02/10/2010 03:54 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > Which however can mean that not killing this system daemon will be
> > traded for DoS-ing the whole system, if the daemon keeps spawning new
> > children as soon as the OOM killer frees up resources for them.
>
> Killing the system daemon *is* a DoS.
Maybe, but if there are two such system daemons on the machine, it's only
half of the other DoS. And since that system daemon has already been
identified as a forkbomb, it's probably already useless anyway and killing
the children won't save anything. In which realistic case a system daemon has
children that together cause OOM, yet can still be considered working after
you kill one or a limited number of those children?
> It would stop eg. the database or the web server, which is
> generally the main task of systems that run a database or
> a web server.
--
Lubos Lunak
openSUSE Boosters team, KDE developer
l.lunak@...e.cz , l.lunak@....org
--
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