Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:34:01 -0300 (BRT) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: Andrea VM changes |
| |
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:43:27 -0300 (BRT) From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>, Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>, Antonio Vargas <wind@cocodriloo.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Marc-Christian Petersen <m.c.p@wolk-project.de> Subject: Re: Andrea VM changes
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> This oom killer on desktops may do a worse selections of the task to > kill (the usual ssh now has a chance to be killed), but it fixes the oom > deadlocks and it won't do stupid things on servers shall a netscape or > whatever else app hit an userspace bug. So I've to prefer it, until I > will write a reliable algorithm for the oom killing that won't fall into > dosable corner cases so easily (mlock/nfs/database as the three most > common examples of where current mainline can fail, btw the lowmem > shortage is another very common DoS that the oom killer will never > notice, my tree doesn't deadlock [or at least not technically, in > practice it may look like a kernel deadlock despite syscalls returns > -ENOMEM ;) ] during lowmem shortage on the 64G boxes).
Suppose you have a big fat hog leaking (lets say, netscape) allocating pages at a slow pace. Now you have a decent well behaved app who is allocating at a fast pace, and gets killed.
The chance the well behaved app gets killed is big, right?
- 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/
| |