Re: User space out of memory approach

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

On Maw, 2005-01-11 at 20:46, Ilias Biris wrote:
> well looking into Alan's email again I think I answered thinking on
> the wrong side :-) that the suggestion was to switch off OOM
> altogether and be done with all the discussion... tsk tsk tsk too
> defensive and hasty I guess :-)

Thats what mode 2 is all about. There are some problems with over-early
triggering of OOM that Andrea fixed that are still relevant (or stick
"never OOM if mode == 2" into your kernel)

> Did I get it right this time Alan? 

Basically yes - the real problem with the OOM situation is there is no
correct answer. People have spent years screwing around with the OOM
killer selection logic and while you can make it pick large tasks or old
tasks or growing tasks easily nobody has a good heuristic about what to
die because it depends on the users wishes. OOM requires AF_TELEPATHY
sockets and we don't have them.

For most users simply not allowing the mess to occur solves the problem
- not all but most.