Re: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting?

[Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>]

Alan wrote:
> > On an embedded platform this allows the designer to engineer the system
> > and protect critical apps based on their expected memory consumption.
> > If one of those apps goes crazy and starts chewing additional memory
> > then it becomes vulnerable to the oom killer while the other apps remain
> > protected.
>
> That is why we have no-overcommit support.

Alan, I think you know that this isn't really true, due to shared-libs.

> Now there is an argument for
> a meaningful rlimit-as to go with it, and together I think they do what
> you really need.

The problem with rlimit is that it works per process.  Tuning this by hand 
may be awkward and/or wasteful.  What we need is to rlimit on a global 
basis, by calculating an upperlimit dynamically, such as to avoid 
overcommit/OOM.


Thanks!

--
Al