[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110826182522.GB2720@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 14:25:22 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: VM: add would_have_oomkilled sysctl
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:21:20AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> > At various times in the past, we've had reports where users have been
> > convinced that the oomkiller was too heavy handed. I added this sysctl
> > mostly as a knob for them to see that the kernel really doesn't do much better
> > without killing something.
> >
>
> The page allocator expects that the oom killer will kill something to free
> memory so it takes a temporary timeout and then retries the allocation
> indefinitely. We never oom kill unless we are going to retry
> indefinitely, otherwise it wouldn't be worthwhile.
>
> That said, the only time the oom killer doesn't actually do something is
> when it detects an exiting thread that will hopefully free memory soon or
> when it detects an eligible thread that has already been oom killed and
> we're waiting for it to exit. So this patch will result in an endless
> series of unratelimited printk's.
>
> Not sure that's very helpful.
It's an old patch, and the oom-killer heuristics have improved since then,
as this didn't used to be the case. Regardless, I'll just drop it from Fedora.
thanks,
Dave
--
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