From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760719AbWLHN5d (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:57:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760724AbWLHN5d (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:57:33 -0500 Received: from [212.33.187.138] ([212.33.187.138]:32922 "EHLO localhost.localdomain" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760719AbWLHN5d (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:57:33 -0500 From: Al Boldi To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting? Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:58:29 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200612081658.29338.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan wrote: > > On an embedded platform this allows the designer to engineer the system > > and protect critical apps based on their expected memory consumption. > > If one of those apps goes crazy and starts chewing additional memory > > then it becomes vulnerable to the oom killer while the other apps remain > > protected. > > That is why we have no-overcommit support. Alan, I think you know that this isn't really true, due to shared-libs. > Now there is an argument for > a meaningful rlimit-as to go with it, and together I think they do what > you really need. The problem with rlimit is that it works per process. Tuning this by hand may be awkward and/or wasteful. What we need is to rlimit on a global basis, by calculating an upperlimit dynamically, such as to avoid overcommit/OOM. Thanks! -- Al