From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D7296B00A2 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:08:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4B72E81D.9020409@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:08:45 -0500 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch 1/7 -mm] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Nick Piggin , Andrea Arcangeli , Balbir Singh , Lubos Lunak , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On 02/10/2010 11:32 AM, 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. > > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes Acked-by: Rik van Riel -- All rights reversed. -- 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: email@kvack.org