[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090803212945.CC2F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 21:32:40 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm v2] mm: introduce oom_adj_child
Hi
Sorry for queue jumping. I have one question.
> > > - /proc/pid/oom_score is inconsistent when the thread that set the
> > > effective per-mm oom_adj exits and it is now obsolete since you have
> > > no way to determine what the next effective oom_adj value shall be.
> > >
> > plz re-caluculate it. it's not a big job if done in lazy way.
> >
>
> You can't recalculate it if all the remaining threads have a different
> oom_adj value than the effective oom_adj value from the thread that is now
> exited. There is no assumption that, for instance, the most negative
> oom_adj value shall then be used. Imagine the effective oom_adj value
> being +15 and a thread sharing the same memory has an oom_adj value of
> -16. Under no reasonable circumstance should the oom preference of the
> entire thread then change to -16 just because its the side-effect of a
> thread exiting.
Why do we need recaluculate AT thread exiting time?
it is only used when oom_score is readed or actual OOM happend.
both those are slow-path.
>
> That's the _entire_ reason why we need consistency in oom_adj values so
> that userspace is aware of how the oom killer really works and chooses
> tasks. I understand that it differs from the previously allowed behavior,
> but those userspace applications need to be fixed if, for no other reason,
> they are now consistent with how the oom killer kills tasks. I think
> that's a very worthwhile goal and the cost of moving to a new interface
> such as /proc/pid/oom_adj_child to have the same inheritance property that
> was available in the past is justified.
--
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