[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1001291307460.2938@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:11:35 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, vedran.furac@...il.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, minchan.kim@...il.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] oom-kill: add lowmem usage aware oom kill handling
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> If so, all heuristics other than vm_size should be purged, I think.
I don't recall anybody disagreeing about removing some of the current
heuristics, but there is value to those beyond simply total_vm: we want to
penalize tasks that do not share any mems_allowed with the triggering
task, for example, otherwise it can lead to needless oom killing. Many
people believe we should keep the slight penalty for superuser tasks over
regular user tasks, as well.
Auditing the badness() function is a worthwhile endeavor and I think you'd
be most successful if you tweaked the various penalties (runtime, nice,
capabilities, etc) to reflect how much each is valued in terms of VM size,
the baseline. I doubt anybody would defend simply dividing by 4 or
multiplying by 2 being scientific.
--
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