From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: "David Rientjes" <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Rik van Riel" <riel@redhat.com>,
"Paul Menage" <menage@google.com>,
"KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm v2] mm: introduce oom_adj_child
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:10:49 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <77df8765230d9f83859fde3119a2d60a.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0907311212240.22732@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
David Rientjes wrote:
>> > It livelocks if a thread is chosen and passed to oom_kill_task() while
>> > another per-thread oom_adj value is OOM_DISABLE for a thread sharing
>> the
>> > same memory.
>> >
>> I say "why don't modify buggy selection logic?"
>>
>> Why we have to scan all threads ?
>> As fs/proc/readdir does, you can scan only "process group leader".
>>
>> per-thread scan itself is buggy because now we have per-process
>> effective-oom-adj.
>>
>
> Without my patches to change oom_adj from task_struct to mm_struct, you'd
> need to scan all tasks and not just the tgids because their oom_adj values
> can differ amongst threads in the same thread group. So while it may now
> be possible to shorten the scan as a result of my approach, it isn't a
> solution itself to the problem.
Did I said "revert your patch in -rc" even once ?
livelock-avoidance itself is good work, thank you.
All my suggestion is based on your patch already in rc4.
Summarizing I think now .....
- rename mm->oom_adj as mm->effective_oom_adj
- re-add per-thread oom_adj
- update mm->effective_oom_adj based on per-thread oom_adj
- if necessary, plz add read-only /proc/pid/effective_oom_adj file.
or show 2 values in /proc/pid/oom_adj
- rewrite documentation about oom_score.
" it's calclulated from _process's_ memory usage and oom_adj of
all threads which shares a memor context".
This behavior is not changed from old implemtation, anyway.
- If necessary, rewrite oom_kill itself to scan only thread group
leader. It's a way to go regardless of vfork problem.
>
>> > How else do you propose the oom killer use oom_adj values on a
>> per-thread
>> > basis without considering other threads sharing the same memory?
>> As I wrote.
>> per-process(signal struct) or per-thread oom_adj and add
>> mm->effecitve_oom_adj
>>
>> task scanning isn't necessary to do per-thread scan and you can scan
>> only process-group-leader. What's bad ?
>> If oom_score is problem, plz fix it to show effective_oom_score.
>>
>
> When only using (and showing) mm->effective_oom_adj for a task, userspace
> will not be able to adjust /proc/pid/oom_score with /proc/pid/oom_adj
> as Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt says you can for a thread unless it
> exceeds effective_oom_adj.>
Is it different from old behavior ?
I think documentation is wrong. It should say "you should think of
multi-thread effect to oom_adj/oom_score".
Thanks,
-Kame
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm v2] mm: introduce oom_adj_child
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:10:49 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <77df8765230d9f83859fde3119a2d60a.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0907311212240.22732@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
David Rientjes wrote:
>> > It livelocks if a thread is chosen and passed to oom_kill_task() while
>> > another per-thread oom_adj value is OOM_DISABLE for a thread sharing
>> the
>> > same memory.
>> >
>> I say "why don't modify buggy selection logic?"
>>
>> Why we have to scan all threads ?
>> As fs/proc/readdir does, you can scan only "process group leader".
>>
>> per-thread scan itself is buggy because now we have per-process
>> effective-oom-adj.
>>
>
> Without my patches to change oom_adj from task_struct to mm_struct, you'd
> need to scan all tasks and not just the tgids because their oom_adj values
> can differ amongst threads in the same thread group. So while it may now
> be possible to shorten the scan as a result of my approach, it isn't a
> solution itself to the problem.
Did I said "revert your patch in -rc" even once ?
livelock-avoidance itself is good work, thank you.
All my suggestion is based on your patch already in rc4.
Summarizing I think now .....
- rename mm->oom_adj as mm->effective_oom_adj
- re-add per-thread oom_adj
- update mm->effective_oom_adj based on per-thread oom_adj
- if necessary, plz add read-only /proc/pid/effective_oom_adj file.
or show 2 values in /proc/pid/oom_adj
- rewrite documentation about oom_score.
" it's calclulated from _process's_ memory usage and oom_adj of
all threads which shares a memor context".
This behavior is not changed from old implemtation, anyway.
- If necessary, rewrite oom_kill itself to scan only thread group
leader. It's a way to go regardless of vfork problem.
>
>> > How else do you propose the oom killer use oom_adj values on a
>> per-thread
>> > basis without considering other threads sharing the same memory?
>> As I wrote.
>> per-process(signal struct) or per-thread oom_adj and add
>> mm->effecitve_oom_adj
>>
>> task scanning isn't necessary to do per-thread scan and you can scan
>> only process-group-leader. What's bad ?
>> If oom_score is problem, plz fix it to show effective_oom_score.
>>
>
> When only using (and showing) mm->effective_oom_adj for a task, userspace
> will not be able to adjust /proc/pid/oom_score with /proc/pid/oom_adj
> as Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt says you can for a thread unless it
> exceeds effective_oom_adj.>
Is it different from old behavior ?
I think documentation is wrong. It should say "you should think of
multi-thread effect to oom_adj/oom_score".
Thanks,
-Kame
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-01 1:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-29 4:27 [patch -mm v2] mm: introduce oom_adj_child David Rientjes
2009-07-29 4:27 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-29 23:13 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-29 23:13 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-29 23:25 ` Paul Menage
2009-07-29 23:25 ` Paul Menage
2009-07-30 2:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-30 2:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-30 7:06 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-30 7:06 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-31 6:47 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-31 6:47 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-31 9:31 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-31 9:31 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-03 11:58 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 11:58 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 12:12 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 12:12 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-30 9:00 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-30 9:00 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-30 9:31 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-30 9:31 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-30 10:02 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-30 10:02 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-30 19:05 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-30 19:05 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-31 0:33 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-31 0:33 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-31 6:50 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-31 6:50 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-31 19:38 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-31 19:38 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-03 12:16 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 12:16 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-31 9:36 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-31 9:36 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-31 10:49 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-31 10:49 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-31 19:18 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-31 19:18 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-01 1:10 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [this message]
2009-08-01 1:10 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-01 20:26 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-01 20:26 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-03 1:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-03 1:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-03 7:59 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-03 7:59 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-03 8:02 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-03 8:02 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-03 8:08 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-03 8:08 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-03 8:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-03 8:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-03 8:55 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-03 8:55 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-03 12:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 12:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 12:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 12:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 12:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 12:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 16:17 ` Paul Menage
2009-08-03 16:17 ` Paul Menage
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=77df8765230d9f83859fde3119a2d60a.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com \
--to=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.