Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 07:03:33 -0800 From: Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Johannes Lundberg <johalun0@gmail.com>, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OOM problem? Message-ID: <20171208150333.GI16028@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20171208101658.GD2272@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20171208011430.GA16016@mcvoy.com> <CAECmPwtcsHwiZpmx4%2BT_w3njEdUAjGZiRZKEX53m-QVJLSuY9Q@mail.gmail.com> <20171208101658.GD2272@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:16:58PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 08:18:21AM +0000, Johannes Lundberg wrote: > > Regarding potential oom overhaul. Personally I like the idea of an oom > > signal. The idea comes from iOS where applications get a callback when > > system memory is low and they're given a chance to free unused > > resources or resources that can easily be recreated, before getting > > killed completely. > The OOM signal is a topic which was discussed to death many times before. > The summary is that it does not work, because you need to provide pages > for userspace to be able to handle the signal. Just for the record, what I was proposing wasn't as ambitious as what Johannes suggested (while I like his idea it's "weird" and it's unlikely that Firefox et al would use it unless we got Linux to have the same thing). I was just suggesting that processes sleeping in vm_wait() wake up once in a while to respect signals, as in, if I kill -9 that process I want it to go away. Currently, it doesn't. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com http://www.mcvoy.com/lm
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171208150333.GI16028>