[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinKm=m8zdPGN0Trpy4HtEFyxMYzPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 17:46:54 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, caiqian@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
hughd@...gle.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] oom: don't kill random process
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:53 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>> + /*
>>> + * chosen_point==1 may be a sign that root privilege bonus is too
>>> large
>>> + * and we choose wrong task. Let's recalculate oom score without
>>> the
>>> + * dubious bonus.
>>> + */
>>> + if (protect_root&& (chosen_points == 1)) {
>>> + protect_root = 0;
>>> + goto retry;
>>> + }
>>
>> The idea is good to me.
>> But once we meet it, should we give up protecting root privileged
>> processes?
>> How about decaying bonus point?
>
> After applying my patch, unprivileged process never get score-1. (note,
> mapping
> anon pages naturally makes to increase nr_ptes)
Hmm, If I understand your code correctly, unprivileged process can get
a score 1 by 3% bonus.
So after all, we can get a chosen_point with 1.
Why I get a chosen_point with 1 is as bonus is rather big, I think.
So I would like to use small bonus than first iteration(ie, decay bonus).
>
> Then, decaying don't make any accuracy. Am I missing something?
Maybe I miss something. :(
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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