On 18/09/2014 19:27, James wrote:
Kerin Millar <kerframil <at> fastmail.co.uk> writes:
The need for the OOM killer stems from the fact that memory can be
overcommitted. These articles may prove informative:
http://lwn.net/Articles/317814/
Yea I saw this article. Its dated February 4, 2009. How much has
changed with the kernel/configs/userspace mechanism? Nothing, everything?
A new tunable, "oom_score_adj", was added, which accepts values between
0 and 1000.
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/a63d83f#include/linux/oom.h
As mentioned there, the "oom_adj" tunable remains for reasons of
backward compatibility. Setting one will adjust the other per the
appropriate scale.
It doesn't look as though Karthikesan's proposal for a cgroup based
controller was ever accepted.
--Kerin
