[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090722233347.776E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:21:11 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mel@....ul.ie, npiggin@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] copy over oom_adj value at fork time
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:00 PM, David Rientjes<rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Paul Menage wrote:
> >
> >> Agreed, but the same livelock can be fixed in ways that don't break
> >> the API. (E.g. check for the victim being OOM_DISABLED in
> >> select_bad_process() when we find a new "worst" candidate).
> >>
> >
> > And allow /proc/pid-of-child/oom_score to represent a possible candidate
> > (and, additionally, a hint at the oom killing priority) when it really
> > isn't?
Oops, I really don't like /proc/pid-of-child/oom_score. it is very strange.
>
> It's the API that's existed for years with no complaints, AFAICS.
I think thead and vfork() should be separeted on this discussion.
I agree vfork() regression should be fixed. but I don't think anyone
hope per-thread oom score.
Of cource, if simple reverting is best way, I don't oppose this.... ;-)
--
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