[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105271211050.2533@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 12:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: CAI Qian <caiqian@...hat.com>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hughd@...gle.com,
kamezawa hiroyu <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
minchan kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] oom: oom-killer don't use proportion of system-ram
internally
On Thu, 26 May 2011, CAI Qian wrote:
> Here is the results for the testing. Running the reproducer as non-root
> user, the results look good as OOM killer just killed each python process
> in-turn that the reproducer forked. However, when running it as root
> user, sshd and other random processes had been killed.
>
Thanks for testing! The patch that I proposed for you was a little more
conservative in terms of providing a bonus to root processes that aren't
using a certain threshold of memory. My latest proposal was to give root
processes only a 1% bonus for every 10% of memory they consume, so it
would be impossible for them to have an oom score of 1 as reported in your
logs.
I believe that KOSAKI-san is refreshing his series of patches, so let's
look at how your workload behaves on the next iteration. Thanks CAI!
--
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