[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151218163553.GC4201@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:35:53 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 02:15:09PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 16-12-15 15:58:44, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > It's hard to say how long declaration of oom should take. Correctness
> > comes first. But what is "correct"? oom isn't a binary condition -
> > there's a chance that if we keep churning away for another 5 minutes
> > we'll be able to satisfy this allocation (but probably not the next
> > one). There are tradeoffs between promptness-of-declaring-oom and
> > exhaustiveness-in-avoiding-it.
>
> Yes, this is really hard to tell. What I wanted to achieve here is a
> determinism - the same load should give comparable results. It seems
> that there is an improvement in this regards. The time to settle is
> much more consistent than with the original implementation.
+1
Before that we couldn't even really make a meaningful statement about
how long we are going to try - "as long as reclaim thinks it can maybe
do some more, depending on heuristics". I think the best thing we can
strive for with OOM is to make the rules simple and predictable.
--
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