On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Giuliano Pochini wrote:
> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:02:21 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Giuliano Pochini <pochini@shiny.it>
> To: Helge Hafting <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Killing/balancing processes when overcommited
>
>
> > This is hard to setup, and has the some weaknesses:
> > 1. You worry only about apps you _know_. But the guy who got
> > his netscape or make -j killed will rename his
> > copies of these apps to something else so your carefully
> > set up oom killer won't know what is running.
> > (How much memory is the "mybrowser" app supposed to use?)
> > Or he'll get another software package that you haven't heard of.
> >
> > 2. Lots and lots of people running netscapes using
> > only 70M each will still be too much. Think of
> > a university with xterms and then they all
> > goes to cnn.com or something for the latest news
> > about some large event.
> >
> > Even nice well-behaved apps
> > is bad when there is unusually many of them. [...]
>
> That's obvious. The point is that the sysadmin should be
> able to hint the oom killer as much as possible.
> The current linux/mm/oom_kill.c:badness() takes into account
> many factors. The sysadmin should be able to affect the
> badness calculation on process/user/something basis.
I think what is really needed is a daemon to handle complex descisions
like that with the kernel OOM killer as a fall back.
Gerhard
-- Gerhard Mack<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.
- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:34 EST