On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 21:09 +0800, John Summerfied wrote: > I'm not sure it's useful to know that:-( In my experience (which > includes 2.6 kernels that are supposed to do this better) the killed > process is generally an innocent bystander. The process that triggered the OOM condition is probably just as innocent. There isn't always a "cuplrit", and if there is it isn't easy to spot. The OOM killer tries to do the most sensible thing by killing less active processes that still yield a fair amount of released memory. BTW, the OpenBSD folks reckon there is no reasonable or fair way of dealing with an OOM situation and take the easy way out: they simply halt the whole system... Cheers Steffen.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
