[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180408084717.62ee4f9e@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 08:47:17 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-patch-test@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ringbuffer: Don't choose the process with adj equal
OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 13:54:59 +0800
Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 10:16:23 +0800
> > Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Don't choose the process with adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN which
> >> over-allocating pages for ring buffers.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > -- Steve
> because in oom_evaluate_task, the process with adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN will
> be suppressed by oom_badness, but with applying your latest patch,
> such process will
> be selected by oom_task_origin
>
> if (oom_task_origin(task)) {
> points = ULONG_MAX;
> goto select;
> }
>
> points = oom_badness(task, NULL, oc->nodemask, oc->totalpages);
> if (!points || points < oc->chosen_points)
> goto next;
And what's wrong with that?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists