User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Taming the OOM killer

Taming the OOM killer

Posted Feb 5, 2009 22:05 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
In reply to: Taming the OOM killer by nix
Parent article: Taming the OOM killer

OK, I guess it's not as straightforward as I thought.

Perhaps another way to avoid the need for memory allocation would be to use a new vfork-like call (heck, it could even be called vfork) that has a fixed memory budget set as a matter of policy system-wide. So when you vfork(), the memory is set up as copy-on-write, but the child process has a budget of at most 1000 pages it can scribble on. That should be enough to set up the necessary file descriptors, but if it tries to dirty more than its allowance it is summarily killed.

That way, there is some upper limit to the amount of memory that needs to be allocated - when vfork()ing the kernel just needs to ensure 1000 free pages - and the kernel doesn't have to make a (possibly untrustworthy) promise that the whole process address space is available for normal use.


(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds