linux-kernel - Re: [Lsf-pc] [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e1fc2c84f5ef2e1408f6fee7228a52a458990b31.camel@surriel.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Apr 2019 07:51:21 -0400
From:   Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     dancol@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, jannh@...gle.com,
        minchan@...nel.org, penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, hannes@...xchg.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        jrdr.linux@...il.com, yuzhoujian@...ichuxing.com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, timmurray@...gle.com,
        lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org, guro@...com,
        christian@...uner.io, ebiederm@...ssion.com
Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed
 process

On Wed, 2019-04-10 at 18:43 -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan via Lsf-pc wrote:
> The time to kill a process and free its memory can be critical when
> the
> killing was done to prevent memory shortages affecting system
> responsiveness.

The OOM killer is fickle, and often takes a fairly
long time to trigger. Speeding up what happens after
that seems like the wrong thing to optimize.

Have you considered using something like oomd to
proactively kill tasks when memory gets low, so
you do not have to wait for an OOM kill?

-- 
All Rights Reversed.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)