Re: configurability of OOM killer

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: configurability of OOM killer
Date: 2008-02-02 00:36:54
Message-ID: 47A3BB26.2030602@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>
>> This page
>> http://linux-mm.org/OOM_Killer
>>
>
> Egad. Whoever thought *this* was a good idea should be taken out
> and shot:
>
> The independent memory size of any child (except a kernel thread) is added to the score:
>
> /*
> * Processes which fork a lot of child processes are likely
> * a good choice. We add the vmsize of the childs if they
> * have an own mm. This prevents forking servers to flood the
> * machine with an endless amount of childs
> */
>
> In other words, server daemons are preferentially killed, and the parent
> will *always* get zapped in place of its child (since the child cannot
> have a higher score). No wonder we have to turn off OOM kill.
>
>

That was pretty much my reaction.

And it looks like you can't turn it off for postgres processes because
that works by process group and we call setsid(), so we aren't in a
single process group.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gurjeet Singh 2008-02-02 00:49:17 Re: <IDLE> and waiting
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-02-02 00:08:24 Re: configurability of OOM killer