[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0912011414510.27500@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:20:08 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
vedran.furac@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom_kill: use rss value instead of vm size for badness
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > The purpose of /proc/pid/oom_adj is not always to polarize the heuristic
> > for the task it represents, it allows userspace to define when a task is
> > rogue. Working with total_vm as a baseline, it is simple to use the
> > interface to tune the heuristic to prefer a certain task over another when
> > its memory consumption goes beyond what is expected. With this interface,
> > I can easily define when an application should be oom killed because it is
> > using far more memory than expected. I can also disable oom killing
> > completely for it, if necessary. Unless you have a consistent baseline
> > for all tasks, the adjustment wouldn't contextually make any sense. Using
> > rss does not allow users to statically define when a task is rogue and is
> > dependent on the current state of memory at the time of oom.
> >
> > I would support removing most of the other heuristics other than the
> > baseline and the nodes intersection with mems_allowed to prefer tasks in
> > the same cpuset, though, to make it easier to understand and tune.
>
> I feel you talked about oom_adj doesn't fit your use case. probably you need
> /proc/{pid}/oom_priority new knob. oom adjustment doesn't fit you.
> you need job severity based oom killing order. severity doesn't depend on any
> hueristic.
> server administrator should know job severity on his system.
>
That's the complete opposite of what I wrote above, we use oom_adj to
define when a user application is considered "rogue," meaning that it is
using far more memory than expected and so we want it killed. As you
mentioned weeks ago, the kernel cannot identify a memory leaker; this is
the user interface to allow the oom killer to identify a memory-hogging
rogue task that will (probably) consume all system memory eventually.
The way oom_adj is implemented, with a bit shift on a baseline of
total_vm, it can also polarize the badness heuristic to kill an
application based on priority by examining /proc/pid/oom_score, but that
wasn't my concern in this case. Using rss as a baseline reduces my
ability to tune oom_adj appropriately to identify those rogue tasks
because it is highly dynamic depending on the state of the VM at the time
of oom.
--
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