From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0D66B007D for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:20:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:21:37 +0000 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] oom-kill: add lowmem usage aware oom kill handling Message-ID: <20100129162137.79b2a6d4@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: vedran.furac@gmail.com, Andrew Morton , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , rientjes@google.com, minchan.kim@gmail.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" List-ID: > panic_on_oom=1 works enough well.For Vedran's, overcommit memory will work > well. But oom-killer kills very bad process if not tweaked. > So, I think some improvement should be done. That is why we have the per process oom_adj values - because for nearly fifteen years someone comes along and says "actually in my environment the right choice is ..." Ultimately it is policy. The kernel simply can't read minds. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org