Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler

[Aaron Sethman <androsyn@ratbox.org>]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, James Sutherland wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > 
> > > > so dns helper is killed first, then netscape. (my idea might not
> > > > make sense though.)
> > > 
> > > It makes some sense, but I don't think OOM is something that
> > > occurs often enough to care about it /that/ much...
> > 
> > i'm trying to handle Andrea's case, the init=/bin/bash manual-bootup case,
> > with 4MB RAM and no swap, where the admin tries to exec a 2MB process. I
> > think it's a legitimate concern - i cannot know in advance whether a
> > freshly started process would trigger an OOM or not.
> 
> Shouldn't the runtime factor handle this, making sure the new process is
> killed? (Maybe not if you're almost OOM right from the word go, and run
> this process straight off... Hrm.)

I think the run time should probably be accounted into to this as
well. Basically start knocking off recent processes first, which are
likely to be childless, and start working your way up in age. The
reasoning here is that your less likely an important, long running
service.  Of course you could probably account for whether the process is
childless or not as well. 

Just my $0.02 on it..


Aaron

--
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/