[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830901271555m7ba2ec0ercb0f0d046d71a48a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:55:38 -0800
From: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>,
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>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:21 AM, Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net> wrote:
> Having userspace to decide which task to kill may not work in some cases
> at all (when task is swapped and we need to kill someone to get the mem
> to swap out the task, which will make that decision).
That's true in the case of a global OOM. In the case of a local OOM
(caused by memory limits applied via the cgroup memory controller, or
NUMA affinity enforcement applied by cpusets) the userspace handler
can be in a different domain which isn't OOM, and be quite capable of
figuring out who to kill. In our particular use case, it can happen
that a high-priority job hits its memory limits and triggers an OOM,
which causes the system controller daemon to kill some lower-priority
job and reassign some memory from that now-dead low-priority job (and
thus prevent the OOM from killing any process in the original cgroup).
This is something that would be very hard to express via kernel
policy.
Paul
--
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