[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DE337FB.3000804@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 15:23:55 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: rostedt@...dmis.org
CC: vnagarnaik@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com, mingo@...hat.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, mrubin@...gle.com, dhsharp@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace: Set oom_score_adj to maximum for ring buffer allocating
process
(2011/05/28 10:50), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 17:44 -0700, Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
>
>> That said, I am open to changing it if Steven and you think using
>> oom_killer_disabled is a better solution.
>
> My biggest concern is that we are setting policy in the kernel. If you
> are concerned about this, why not just have the process that is going to
> increase the size of the ring buffer adjust its own oom policy
> with /proc/<pid>/oom_score_adj ? Only a privilege process can increase
> the size of the ring buffer so it's not like we are worried about any
> normal user task upping the ring buffer to kill other processes.
I like Steven's approach.
Because even if we apply Vaibhav's patch, we still have a oom issue.
because when oom-killer killed echo commands, it doesn't shrink ring
buffer. it only just die. So, the kernel is still under extreme memory
shortage. Any admins operation may invoke next oom-killer.
And -personally- I think any tracing user should know system ram size
and proper ring buffer size. ;)
--
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