| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
death by swapdeath by swapPosted Nov 16, 2009 13:50 UTC (Mon) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183)In reply to: death by swap by michaeljt Parent article: Toward a smarter OOM killer
>> If you get to the point that you're stealing a page from a process simply because that process is over its quota of real memory, you should steal ALL that process' pages. It can't fit its working set into memory, so it isn't going to make decent progress, so the memory you do give it is wasted.
>I suppose I see three cases here. One is that the page was part of the process' working set at an earlier point in time, but no longer is. In that case swapping it out is the right thing to do. The other is that the process is in control, but it's working set is bigger than the available memory. Then I agree that there is a good case for putting it on hold until enough memory is available, although that is a non-trivial problem which is somewhat outside of the scope of what I am trying to do. And the third case is the one that I am interested in - a runaway process which will eventually be OOMed. In this case, the quota will stop it from trampling on the working set of every other process in memory in the meantime. Actually case 2 could be handled to some extent by lowering the priority of a process that kept on swapping for too long.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||