From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (root@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.31.123]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA19933 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:08:59 -0500 Message-ID: <19971216145643.34360@Elf.mj.gts.cz> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:56:43 +0100 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: Recipe for cooking 2.1.72's mm References: <19971216091554.50382@Elf.mj.gts.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Rik van Riel on Tue, Dec 16, 1997 at 12:53:36PM +0100 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl Cc: linux-mm List-ID: Hi! > > Sorry. There is a problem. It needs to be solved, not worked > > around. (Notice, that same process does nothing bad to 2.0.28). > > On my system, it just gives one or two out-of-memory kills > of random processes. I'd really like it if those processes > would be a little less random... Killing kerneld or crond > (or X... remember those poor stateless-vga-card users) is > IMHO worse than killing a program from some USER. Finding > the most hoggy non-root process group and killing some of > it's programs shouldn't be too difficult. Aha. So you were unsuccessfull while reproducing. On my system no process dies, but whole system is dead. > btw: I'm using 2.1.66 with my mmap-age patch... > > > And: Work around is bad. Imagine your machine with such behaviour on > > 100MBit ethernet. Imagine me around (ping -f)ing your machine. That > > can keep your pages low for as long as I want. You do not your machine > > to go yo-yo (up and down and up and down ...). > > Ok, so we should limit the amount of memory the kernel can grab > for internal usage... Sysctl-wise of course, because some people > have special purpose routing machines. It might be nice idea. I'm just afraid that for every limit, you find situation in which limit _must_ be exceeded or action is impossible. Pavel -- I'm really pavel@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. Pavel Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-).