[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEPKNTK3DOBApeVDpwJ_B7jkLVp4GQ0ihM1PwAusyc8TWQyB_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:03:16 -0400
From: Kyle Walker <kwalker@...hat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
mhocko@...nel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, vdavydov@...allels.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stanislav Kozina <skozina@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:32 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> I struggle to understand how the approach of randomly continuing to kill
> more and more processes in the hope that it slows down usage of memory
> reserves or that we get lucky is better.
Thank you to one and all for the feedback.
I agree, in lieu of treating TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks as unkillable,
and omitting them from the oom selection process, continuing the
carnage is likely to result in more unpredictable results. At this
time, I believe Oleg's solution of zapping the process memory use
while it sleeps with the fatal signal enroute is ideal.
Kyle Walker
--
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