From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm 1/9 v2] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:14:27 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100216061427.GY5723@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1002151417330.26927@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 02:20:01PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> Tasks that do not share the same set of allowed nodes with the task that
> triggered the oom should not be considered as candidates for oom kill.
>
> Tasks in other cpusets with a disjoint set of mems would be unfairly
> penalized otherwise because of oom conditions elsewhere; an extreme
> example could unfairly kill all other applications on the system if a
> single task in a user's cpuset sets itself to OOM_DISABLE and then uses
> more memory than allowed.
>
> Killing tasks outside of current's cpuset rarely would free memory for
> current anyway.
>
> Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
> ---
> mm/oom_kill.c | 12 +++---------
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(zone_scan_lock);
> /* #define DEBUG */
>
> /*
> - * Is all threads of the target process nodes overlap ours?
> + * Do all threads of the target process overlap our allowed nodes?
> */
> static int has_intersects_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> @@ -167,14 +167,6 @@ unsigned long badness(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long uptime)
> points /= 4;
>
> /*
> - * If p's nodes don't overlap ours, it may still help to kill p
> - * because p may have allocated or otherwise mapped memory on
> - * this node before. However it will be less likely.
> - */
> - if (!has_intersects_mems_allowed(p))
> - points /= 8;
> -
> - /*
> * Adjust the score by oom_adj.
> */
> if (oom_adj) {
> @@ -266,6 +258,8 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned long *ppoints,
> continue;
> if (mem && !task_in_mem_cgroup(p, mem))
> continue;
> + if (!has_intersects_mems_allowed(p))
> + continue;
>
> /*
> * This task already has access to memory reserves and is
--
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:[~2010-02-16 6:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-15 22:19 [patch -mm 0/9 v2] oom killer rewrite David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 1/9 v2] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset David Rientjes
2010-02-16 6:14 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 2/9 v2] oom: sacrifice child with highest badness score for parent David Rientjes
2010-02-16 6:15 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 3/9 v2] oom: select task from tasklist for mempolicy ooms David Rientjes
2010-02-23 6:31 ` Balbir Singh
2010-02-23 8:17 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 4/9 v2] oom: remove compulsory panic_on_oom mode David Rientjes
2010-02-16 0:00 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 0:14 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 0:23 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 9:02 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 23:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 23:54 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 0:01 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 0:31 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 0:41 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 0:54 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 1:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 1:58 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 2:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 2:23 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 2:37 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 2:28 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 2:34 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 2:58 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 3:21 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 9:11 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 9:52 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-17 22:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-22 5:31 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-02-22 6:15 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-22 11:42 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-02-22 20:59 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-22 23:51 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-22 20:55 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 2:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-16 6:20 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 6:59 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 7:20 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 7:53 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 8:08 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 8:10 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 8:42 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 5/9 v2] oom: badness heuristic rewrite David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 6/9 v2] oom: deprecate oom_adj tunable David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:28 ` Alan Cox
2010-02-15 22:35 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 7/9 v2] oom: replace sysctls with quick mode David Rientjes
2010-02-16 6:28 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 8:58 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 8/9 v2] oom: avoid oom killer for lowmem allocations David Rientjes
2010-02-15 23:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 0:10 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 0:21 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 1:13 ` [patch] mm: add comment about deprecation of __GFP_NOFAIL David Rientjes
2010-02-16 1:26 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 7:03 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 7:23 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 5:32 ` [patch -mm 8/9 v2] oom: avoid oom killer for lowmem allocations KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-16 7:29 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 6:44 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 7:41 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 7:53 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 8:25 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 23:48 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 0:03 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 0:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 0:21 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-23 11:24 ` Balbir Singh
2010-02-23 21:12 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 9/9 v2] oom: remove unnecessary code and cleanup 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=20100216061427.GY5723@laptop \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=l.lunak@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--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 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).