28 Nov
2005
28 Nov
'05
10:53 p.m.
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 21:09 +0800, John Summerfied wrote:
I'm not sure it's useful to know that:-( In my experience (which includes 2.6 kernels that are supposed to do this better) the killed process is generally an innocent bystander.
The process that triggered the OOM condition is probably just as innocent. There isn't always a "cuplrit", and if there is it isn't easy to spot. The OOM killer tries to do the most sensible thing by killing less active processes that still yield a fair amount of released memory.
BTW, the OpenBSD folks reckon there is no reasonable or fair way of dealing with an OOM situation and take the easy way out: they simply halt the whole system...
Cheers Steffen.