From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:47:19 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ingo Molnar , Andrea Arcangeli , Byron Stanoszek , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > i think the OOM algorithm should not kill processes that have > > child-processes, it should first kill child-less 'leaves'. Killing a > > process that has child processes likely results in unexpected behavior of > > those child-processes. (and equals to effective killing of those > > child-processes as well.) > > I disagree - if we start adding these kinds of heuristics to it, > it wil just be a way for people to try to confuse the OOM code. > Imagine some bad guy that does 15 fork()'s and then tries to > OOM... Also, the only way to prevent bad things like this is userbeans, the per-user resource quotas; until we have that there will ALWAYS be ways to fool the OOM killer. It is just a stop-gap measure to recover from a very bad situation... regards, Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000 http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.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.eu.org/Linux-MM/