[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105231838420.17729@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 18:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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, hughd@...gle.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, minchan.kim@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] oom: don't kill random process
On Tue, 24 May 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > Also, this patch move finding sacrifice child logic into
> > > select_bad_process(). It's necessary to implement adequate
> > > no root bonus recalculation. and it makes good side effect,
> > > current logic doesn't behave as the doc.
> > >
> >
> > This is unnecessary and just makes the oom killer egregiously long. We
> > are already diagnosing problems here at Google where the oom killer holds
> > tasklist_lock on the readside for far too long, causing other cpus waiting
> > for a write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) to encounter issues when irqs are
> > disabled and it is spinning. A second tasklist scan is simply a
> > non-starter.
> >
> > [ This is also one of the reasons why we needed to introduce
> > mm->oom_disable_count to prevent a second, expensive tasklist scan. ]
>
> You misunderstand the code. Both select_bad_process() and oom_kill_process()
> are under tasklist_lock(). IOW, no change lock holding time.
>
A second iteration through the tasklist in select_bad_process() will
extend the time that tasklist_lock is held, which is what your patch does.
--
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