From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3F63FC82.8070008@nortelnetworks.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:28:34 -0400 From: Chris Friesen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling other oom schemes References: <200309120219.h8C2JANc004514@penguin.co.intel.com> <20030913174825.GB7404@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <1063476152.24473.30.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Robert Love Cc: Jamie Lokier , rusty@linux.co.intel.com, riel@conectiva.com.br, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Robert Love wrote: > On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 13:48, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > >>Also, when the OOM condition is triggered I'd like the system to >>reboot, but first try for a short while to unmount filesystems cleanly. >> >>Any chance of those things? > I do like all of this, however, and want to see some different OOM > killers. One thing that we've done, and that others may find useful, is to allow processes to become immune to the oom-killer as long as they stay under a certain amount of memory allocated. We added a syscall that specifies a certain number of pages of memory. As long as the process' memory utilization remains under that amount, the oom-killer will not kill it. In our case we are on a mostly-embedded system, and have a pretty good idea what will be running. This lets us engineer the critical apps to be immune, while still allowing memory to be freed up by killing non-critical applications. Chris -- Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10 Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986 Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com -- 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: aart@kvack.org