Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler

From: Rik van Riel (
Date: Mon Oct 09 2000 - 15:47:19 EST

On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > i think the OOM algorithm should not kill processes that have
> > child-processes, it should first kill child-less 'leaves'. Killing a
> > process that has child processes likely results in unexpected behavior of
> > those child-processes. (and equals to effective killing of those
> > child-processes as well.)
> I disagree - if we start adding these kinds of heuristics to it,
> it wil just be a way for people to try to confuse the OOM code.
> Imagine some bad guy that does 15 fork()'s and then tries to
> OOM...

Also, the only way to prevent bad things like this is userbeans,
the per-user resource quotas; until we have that there will ALWAYS
be ways to fool the OOM killer. It is just a stop-gap measure to
recover from a very bad situation...



"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
       -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:13 EST