Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 03:20:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 03:20:50 -0400 Received: from denise.shiny.it ([194.20.232.1]:20450 "EHLO denise.shiny.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 03:20:50 -0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.7 on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:25:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Giuliano Pochini To: Jim Sibley Subject: RE: Killing/balancing processes when overcommited Cc: Troy Reed , ltc@linux.ibm.com, riel@conectiva.com.br, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 998 Lines: 23 On 11-Sep-2002 Jim Sibley wrote: > I have run into a situation in a multi-user Linux environment that when > memory is exhausted, random things happen. [...] In a "well tuned" system, > we are safe, but when the system accidentally (or deliberately) becomes > "detuned", oom_kill is entered and arbitrarily kills a process. It's not difficult to make the kerner choose the right processes to kill. It's impossible. Imagine that when it goes oom the system stops and asks you what processes have to be killed. What do you kill ? I think the only way to save the system it to tell the kernel which are the processes that must not be killed, except in extreme conditions. Probably we do need an oomd that the sysadmin can configure as he likes. Bye. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/