On Wednesday 08 February 2006 19:57, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > No it only disables the oom killer for constrained allocations.
>
> But on many big numa systems, the way they are administered,
> that affectively disables the oom killer.
I guess it won't matter because they are administrated with appropiate ulimits
I guess. And to be honest the OOM killer never really worked all that
well, so it's not a big loss.
[still often wish we had that "global virtual memory ulimit for uid"]
> I've yet to be convinced that the oom killer is our friend,
> and half of me (not seriously) is almost wishing it were
> gone.
It's more than half of me near seriously agreeing with you.
> Would another option be to continue to fine tune the heuristics
> that the oom killer uses to pick its next victim?
>
> What situation did you hit that motivated this change?
It's a long known design bug of the NUMA policy, but it recently
hit with some test program again.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
