David Rientjes wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Vedran Furac wrote:
> 
>>> The oom killer has been doing this for years and I haven't noticed a huge 
>>> surge in complaints about it killing X specifically because of that code 
>>> in oom_kill_process().
>> Well you said it yourself, you won't see a surge because "oom killer has
>> been doing this *for years*". So you'll have a more/less constant number
>> of complains over the years. Just google for: linux, random, kill, memory;
> 
> You snipped the code segment where I demonstrated that the selected task 
> for oom kill is not necessarily the one chosen to die: if there is a child 
> with disjoint memory that is killable, it will be selected instead.  If 
> Xorg or sshd is being chosen for kill, then you should investigate why 
> that is, but there is nothing random about how the oom killer chooses 
> tasks to kill.

I know that it isn't random, but it sure looks like that to the end user
and I use it to emphasize the problem. And about me investigating, that
simply not possible as I am not a kernel hacker who understands the code
beyond the syntax level. I can only point to the problem in hope that
someone will fix it.

> The facts that you're completely ignoring are that changing the heuristic 
> baseline to rss is not going to prevent Xorg or sshd from being selected 

In my tests a simple "ps -eo rss,command --sort rss" always showed the
cuprit, but OK, find another approach in fixing the problem in hope for
a positive review. Just... I feel everything will be put under the
carpet with fingers in ears while singing everything is fine. Prove me
wrong.

Regards,
Vedran


-- 
http://vedranf.net | a8e7a7783ca0d460fee090cc584adc12