[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1002160105320.17122@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:10:44 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
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 Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I don't really agree with your black and white view. We equally
> can't tell a lot of cases about who is pinning memory where. The
> fact is that any task can be pinning memory and the heuristic
> was specifically catering for that.
>
That's a main source of criticism of the current heuristic: it needlessly
kills tasks. There is only one thing we know for certain: current is
trying to allocate memory on its nodes. We can either kill a task that
is allowed that same set or current itself; there's no evidence that
killing anything else will lead to memory freeing that will allow the
allocation to succeed. The heuristic will never perfectly select the task
that it should kill 100% of the time when playing around with mempolicy
nodes or cpuset mems, but relying on their current placement is a good
indicator of what is more likely than not to free memory of interest.
--
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