linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Figo.zhang" <figo1802@gmail.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]mm/oom-kill: direct hardware access processes should get bonus
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:48:16 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1289400496.10699.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1011091307240.7730@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:16 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Figo.zhang wrote:
> 
> >  
> > the victim should not directly access hardware devices like Xorg server,
> > because the hardware could be left in an unpredictable state, although 
> > user-application can set /proc/pid/oom_score_adj to protect it. so i think
> > those processes should get 3% bonus for protection.
> > 
> 
> The logic here is wrong: if killing these tasks can leave hardware in an 
> unpredictable state (and that state is presumably harmful), then they 
> should be completely immune from oom killing since you're still leaving 
> them exposed here to be killed.

we let the processes with hardware access get bonus for protection. the
goal is not select them to be killed as possible.


> 
> So the question that needs to be answered is: why do these threads deserve 
> to use 3% more memory (not >4%) than others without getting killed?  If 
> there was some evidence that these threads have a certain quantity of 
> memory they require as a fundamental attribute of CAP_SYS_RAWIO, then I 
> have no objection, but that's going to be expressed in a memory quantity 
> not a percentage as you have here.
> 
> The CAP_SYS_ADMIN heuristic has a background: it is used in the oom killer 
> because we have used the same 3% in __vm_enough_memory() for a long time 
> and we want consistency amongst the heuristics.  Adding additional bonuses 
> with arbitrary values like 3% of memory for things like CAP_SYS_RAWIO 
> makes the heuristic less predictable and moves us back toward the old 
> heuristic which was almost entirely arbitrary.


yes, i think it is be better those processes which be protection maybe
divided the badness score by 4, like old heuristic.




--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2010-11-10 14:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-02  1:43 [PATCH]oom-kill: direct hardware access processes should get bonus Figo.zhang
2010-11-02  3:10 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-02 14:24   ` Figo.zhang
2010-11-02 19:34     ` David Rientjes
2010-11-03 23:43 ` [PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE " Figo.zhang
2010-11-03 23:47   ` David Rientjes
     [not found]     ` <AANLkTimjfmLzr_9+Sf4gk0xGkFjffQ1VcCnwmCXA88R8@mail.gmail.com>
2010-11-04  1:38       ` Figo.zhang
2010-11-04  1:50         ` David Rientjes
2010-11-04  2:12           ` Figo.zhang
2010-11-04  2:54             ` David Rientjes
2010-11-04  4:42               ` Figo.zhang
2010-11-04  5:08                 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-09 11:01           ` [PATCH " KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-09 12:24             ` Alan Cox
2010-11-09 21:06               ` David Rientjes
2010-11-09 21:25                 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-10 14:38                 ` Figo.zhang
2010-11-10 20:50                   ` David Rientjes
2010-11-09 10:41 ` [PATCH]oom-kill: direct hardware access processes " KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-09 12:24 ` [PATCH v2]mm/oom-kill: " Figo.zhang
2010-11-09 21:16   ` David Rientjes
2010-11-10 14:48     ` Figo.zhang [this message]
2010-11-14  5:07     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-14 21:29       ` David Rientjes
2010-11-15  1:24         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-15 10:03           ` David Rientjes
2010-11-23  7:16             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-28  1:36               ` David Rientjes
2010-11-30 13:00                 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-30 20:05                   ` David Rientjes
2010-11-10 15:14   ` [PATCH v3]mm/oom-kill: " Figo.zhang
2010-11-10 15:24     ` Figo.zhang
2010-11-10 21:00       ` David Rientjes
2010-11-14  5:21       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-14 21:33         ` David Rientjes
2010-11-15  3:26           ` [PATCH] Revert oom rewrite series Figo.zhang
2010-11-15 10:14             ` David Rientjes
2010-11-15 10:57               ` Alan Cox
2010-11-15 20:54                 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-23  7:16                 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-01-04  7:51       ` [PATCH v3]mm/oom-kill: direct hardware access processes should get bonus Figo.zhang
2011-01-04  8:28         ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-01-04  8:56           ` Figo.zhang
2011-01-06  0:55             ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-01-05  3:32         ` David Rientjes

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=1289400496.10699.21.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=figo1802@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).