[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:21:50 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gspencer@...omium.org, piman@...omium.org, wad@...omium.org,
olofj@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: create a resource limit for oom_adj
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> The original oom_adj design would e.g. adjust all background tabs to seem
> twice as bad as the current tab, so a ever-growing current tab would
> only be able to get one or two tabs killed in the worst case:
>
> System is near OOM while the current tab starts using a normal amount of
> mem and grows beyond limits. After it easily killed the first bg tab by
> allocating one byte, it needs to grow to twice the normal tab memsize to
> start the OOM killer again. By then, it's score will be equal to normal
> background tabs (half size, double score), and killing the second tab will
> be luck. Killing the third tab should be impossible.
>
> (If you adjust the bg tabs to be four times as killable, you'll get what
> you asked for.)
>
>
> I don't know the current oom_score_adj, it should be able to do something
> similar? Or should there be a oom_score_mul?
>
oom_score_adj is done on a linear scale instead of exponential so instead
of increasing oom_adj by 1 for each hop to the current tab, you would need
to double it.
--
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