From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 21:23:54 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <20010322142831.A929@owns.warpcore.org> from "Stephen Clouse" at Mar 22, 2001 02:28:31 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Stephen Clouse Cc: Guest section DW , Rik van Riel , Patrick O'Rourke , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Really the whole oom_kill process seems bass-ackwards to me. I can't in my mind > logically justify annihilating large-VM processes that have been running for > days or weeks instead of just returning ENOMEM to a process that just started > up. How do you return an out of memory error to a C program that is out of memory due to a stack growth fault. There is actually not a language construct for it > It would be nice to give immunity to certain uids, or better yet, just turn the > damn thing off entirely. I've already hacked that in...errr, out. Eventually you have to kill something or the machine deadlocks. The oom killing doesnt kick in until that point. So its up to you how you like your errors. One of the things that we badly need to resurrect for 2.5 is the beancounter work which would let you reasonably do things like guaranteed Oracle a certain amount of the machine, or restrict all the untrusted users to a total of 200Mb hard limit between them etc -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/