Can anyone give us a good reason why we shouldn't just remove the oom
killer, entirely?
Christoph wrote:
> If a task has restricted its memory allocation to one node and does
> excessive allocations then that process needs to die not other processes
> that are harmlessly running on the node and that may not be allocating
> memory at the time.
That _exact_ same argument applies to a system that only has one node.
If we want to remove the oom killer, lets just remove the oom killer.
> People are accustomed of having random processes killed? <shudder>
That's what the oom killer does ... well, it makes an honest effort
not to be random.
So, yes, since it has been there a long time, people are used to
it. Maybe they don't like it, maybe with good reason. But it
is there.
> OOM killing makes
> sense for global allocations if the system is really tight on memory and
> survival is the main goal
If that argument justifies OOM killing on a simple UMA system, then
surely, for -some- critical tasks, it justifies it on a big NUMA system.
Either OOM is useful in some cases or it is not.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
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]
