4 ms·

I missed one question. I don't understand why you believe that forcing the process that is requesting the allocation to deal with it is the best thing generall

I missed one question. I don't understand why you believe that forcing the process that is requesting the allocation to deal with it is the best thing generally. From a systems perspective, it is actually worse because there's a stronger chance you're killing a nice, stable process that might be critical simply because it lost the lottery. The OOM killer strategy is to try to reap short lived processes that allocated a lot. From a systems perspective, this is clearly better... though as I said it might be better if you could more easily modify the OOM heuristic.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
> I don't understand why you believe that forcing the process that is requesting the allocation to deal with it is the best thing generally. Because it is in the best position to understand the consequences of failure and the options for dealing with it. > From a systems perspective, it is actually worse because there's a stronger chance you're killing a nice, stable process that might be critical simply because it lost the lottery. If the process is truly critical, it should be designed to stay stable in the event it can't allocate memory.