Re: OOM notifications

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <drepper@...>
Date: Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 6:01 pm

On 10/18/2007 11:18 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:


That first threshold sounds fine yes. To me, the second mostly sounds like a 
job for SIGTERM though.

The OOM killer could after it selected the task for killing first try a TERM 
on it to give a chance to exit gracefully and only when that doesn't help 
make it eligible for killing on a second round through the badness calculation.

You could moreover _never_ make a task eligible for killing before it 
received a SIGTERM, thereby guaranteeing that everyone got the SIGTERM 
before killing anything, and it seems SIGTERM would be a more focussed 
version of SIGDANGER2 then.

Would at least forego any need for multiplexing the DANGER signal.

Rene.

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
OOM notifications, Marcelo Tosatti, (Thu Oct 18, 4:25 pm)
Re: OOM notifications, Rene Herman, (Thu Oct 18, 4:38 pm)
Re: OOM notifications, Rik van Riel, (Thu Oct 18, 4:52 pm)
Re: OOM notifications, Rene Herman, (Thu Oct 18, 5:06 pm)
Re: OOM notifications, Rik van Riel, (Thu Oct 18, 5:18 pm)
Re: OOM notifications, Rene Herman, (Thu Oct 18, 6:01 pm)
Re: OOM notifications, Rene Herman, (Thu Oct 18, 6:16 pm)
Re: OOM notifications, Ulrich Drepper, (Thu Oct 18, 6:10 pm)
Re: OOM notifications, Pavel Machek, (Fri Oct 19, 6:17 am)
Re: OOM notifications, Chris Friesen, (Fri Oct 19, 1:15 am)