[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0907272311370.26430@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] copy over oom_adj value at fork time
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Actually, if we assume the administrator is really stupid, he can mark
> all processes as OOM_DISABLE. it makes livelock anyway.
Wrong, the oom killer will panic the machine if there are no eligible
tasks to kill. That's actually a more desirable result in most
circumstances over livelocking.
> ITOH, we never seen this livelock on vfork()ed application.
>
I have, which is why I wrote my patches.
> More important thing is: Documentation/filesysmtem/proc/txt says
> oom_adj is process property and vfork()ed parent and child are definitelly
> another process.
>
I've proposed adding /proc/pid/oom_adj_child so that newly initialized
mm's start with a default oom_adj value. Paul suggested that it be a
per-task characteristic, so that's what I'm looking at implementing.
Thanks.
--
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