[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0901220214450.2851@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:18:04 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote:
> I think cpusets preference could be improved, not to depend on badness, with
> something similar to what memcg does. With or without adding overhead of
> tracking processes that has memory from a node.
>
We actually used to do that: we excluded all tasks that did not share the
same cpuset in select_bad_process(). That exclusion was reimplemented as
a preference in badness() since, again, it is quite possible that a large
memory-hogging task without a sufficient oom_adj score, as you mentioned,
has allocated memory on the cpuset's nodes before being moved to a
different cpuset or changing its set of allowable nodes.
I think you would find the per-cgroup oom notifier patch[*] of interest.
It seems to have been dropped after some discussion on improvements, but
allows you to defer all of these decisions to userspace. Would something
like that fix your problem?
[*] http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=122575082227252
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists