[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B72E81D.9020409@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:08:45 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/7 -mm] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset
On 02/10/2010 11:32 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> Tasks that do not share the same set of allowed nodes with the task that
> triggered the oom should not be considered as candidates for oom kill.
>
> Tasks in other cpusets with a disjoint set of mems would be unfairly
> penalized otherwise because of oom conditions elsewhere; an extreme
> example could unfairly kill all other applications on the system if a
> single task in a user's cpuset sets itself to OOM_DISABLE and then uses
> more memory than allowed.
>
> Killing tasks outside of current's cpuset rarely would free memory for
> current anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes<rientjes@...gle.com>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
--
All rights reversed.
--
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