Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757100AbZJ3KtP (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:49:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756468AbZJ3KtO (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:49:14 -0400 Received: from idcmail-mo2no.shaw.ca ([64.59.134.9]:15711 "EHLO idcmail-mo2no.shaw.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756489AbZJ3KtN (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:49:13 -0400 X-Cloudmark-SP-Filtered: true X-Cloudmark-SP-Result: v=1.0 c=1 a=w4iE+TBsmj5y1WloLYF40w==:17 a=1XWaLZrsAAAA:8 a=P-gv2VgPma3YqXCDNFMA:9 a=5T_pUizhnu6uIx5KIYYA:7 a=_5tUt4XMtjJxBooX8yO7z5uQTRIA:4 a=UTB_XpHje0EA:10 From: Thomas Fjellstrom Reply-To: tfjellstrom@shaw.ca To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Memory overcommit Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:49:17 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.26-2-amd64; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) References: <20091030183638.1125c987.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20091030183638.1125c987.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200910300449.17992.tfjellstrom@shaw.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2010 Lines: 49 On Fri October 30 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:10:37 -0700 (PDT) > > David Rientjes wrote: > > > - The kernel can't know the program is bad or not. just guess it. > > > > Totally irrelevant, given your fourth point about /proc/pid/oom_adj. > > We can tell the kernel what we'd like the oom killer behavior should be > > if the situation arises. > > My point is that the server cannot distinguish memory leak from > intentional memory usage. No other than that. > > > > - Then, there is no "correct" OOM-Killer other than fork-bomb > > > killer. > > > > Well of course there is, you're seeing this is a WAY too simplistic > > manner. If we are oom, we want to be able to influence how the oom > > killer behaves and respond to that situation. You are proposing that > > we change the baseline for how the oom killer selects tasks which we > > use CONSTANTLY as part of our normal production environment. I'd > > appreciate it if you'd take it a little more seriously. > > Yes, I'm serious. > > In this summer, at lunch with a daily linux user, I was said > "you, enterprise guys, don't consider desktop or laptop problem at all." > yes, I use only servers. My customer uses server, too. My first priority > is always on server users. > But, for this time, I wrote reply to Vedran and try to fix desktop > problem. Even if current logic works well for servers, "KDE/GNOME is > killed" problem seems to be serious. And this may be a problem for > EMBEDED people, I guess. Whats worse is a friend of mine gets stuck with a useless machine for a couple hours or more when oom tries to do its thing. It swap storms for hours. Not a good thing imo. [snip] -- Thomas Fjellstrom tfjellstrom@shaw.ca -- 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/