Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

Jonathan Morton
2001-03-24T01:39:28Z

>Hmm... "if ( freemem < (size_of_mallocing_process / 20) ) fail_to_allocate;"
>
>Seems like a reasonable soft limit - processes which have already got lots
>of RAM can probably stand not to have that little bit more and can be
>curbed more quickly. Processes with less probably don't deserve to die and
>furthermore are less likely to be engineered to handle malloc() failure, so
>failure only occurs closer to the mark. In this scenario OOM killing
>(which is, after all, a last resort) should trigger rarely and simple
>malloc() failure (which userspace apps can cope with more easily) is an
>early-warning and prevention system.

Following up my own post with some action, I hacked 2.4.1's
mm/mmap.c::vm_enough_pages() to include something similar to the above
algorithm. In fact, it triggers malloc() failure when 1/16th of
current->mm->total_vm would be greater than the sum of the free space and
the potentially-allocated area.

My very quick tests show that my test program (the rogue allocator) now in
fact does encounter a failed malloc() at approx. 475M, instead of being
killed by the OOM handler at approx. 490M. This is pretty much the desired
behaviour.

If someone would like me to post a patch and have it tested, I'd be happy
to do so.

--------------------------------------------------------------
from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail: chromi@cyberspace.org (not for attachments)
big-mail: chromatix@penguinpowered.com
uni-mail: j.d.morton@lancaster.ac.uk

The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.

Get VNC Server for Macintosh from http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/vnc/

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GCS$/E/S dpu(!) s:- a20 C+++ UL++ P L+++ E W+ N- o? K? w--- O-- M++$ V? PS
PE- Y+ PGP++ t- 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D G e+ h+ r++ y+(*)
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----