Re: Memory overcommit

[Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom@shaw.ca>]

On Fri October 30 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> > >    - The kernel can't know the program is bad or not. just guess it.
> >
> > Totally irrelevant, given your fourth point about /proc/pid/oom_adj. 
> > We can tell the kernel what we'd like the oom killer behavior should be
> > if the situation arises.
> 
> My point is that the server cannot distinguish memory leak from
>  intentional memory usage. No other than that.
> 
> > >    - Then, there is no "correct" OOM-Killer other than fork-bomb
> > > killer.
> >
> > Well of course there is, you're seeing this is a WAY too simplistic
> > manner.  If we are oom, we want to be able to influence how the oom
> > killer behaves and respond to that situation.  You are proposing that
> > we change the baseline for how the oom killer selects tasks which we
> > use CONSTANTLY as part of our normal production environment.  I'd
> > appreciate it if you'd take it a little more seriously.
> 
> Yes, I'm serious.
> 
> In this summer, at lunch with a daily linux user, I was said
> "you, enterprise guys, don't consider desktop or laptop problem at all."
> yes, I use only servers. My customer uses server, too. My first priority
> is always on server users.
> But, for this time, I wrote reply to Vedran and try to fix desktop
>  problem. Even if current logic works well for servers, "KDE/GNOME is
>  killed" problem seems to be serious. And this may be a problem for
>  EMBEDED people, I guess.

Whats worse is a friend of mine gets stuck with a useless machine for a 
couple hours or more when oom tries to do its thing. It swap storms for 
hours. Not a good thing imo.

[snip]


-- 
Thomas Fjellstrom
tfjellstrom@shaw.ca