Re: [why oom_adj does not work] Re: Linux killed Kenny, bastard!

[Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de>]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:50:58PM +0100, Bodo Eggert (7eggert@gmx.de) wrote:

> > > This does not work if processes are short-living and are spawned by the
> > > parent on demand.
> > 
> > They will have the same name, too. Your Kenny-killer will fail, too.
> 
> It is not always the case, processes start executing different binaries
> and change the names, that's at least what I observed in the particular
> root case of the discussion.

In that case, you can use a wrapper script.

> > > If processes have different priority in regards to oom
> > > condition, this problem can not be solved with existing interfaces
> > > without changing the application. So effectively there is no solution.
> > 
> > ACK, but being a child should count. Maybe the weight for childs should be 
> > increased, if it does not do the right thing? Or maybe the childs do share 
> > much (most of the) memory, so killing the parent is the right thing if you 
> > want to free some RAM?
> 
> There could be lots of heuristics applied for the different cases, but
> without changing the application, they are somewhat limited to
> long-living processes only. There are really lots of cases when it does
> not stand.

If it's short-lived enough, the processes will out-die the OOM-Killer.
You can only win by by suspending or killing the factory.
-- 
Why do men die before their wives?
They want to.