Re: [RFC][-mm][PATCH 0/6] oom-killer: total renewal

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-11-02T15:44:49Z

Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi, Kame.
>
> I looked over the patch series.
> It's rather big change of OOM.
yes, bigger than I expected.

> I see you and David want to make OOM fresh from scratch.
> But, It makes for testers to test harder.
>
I see. Maybe I have to separate this to 2 or 3 stages.

> I like your idea of fork-bomb detector.
> Don't we use it without big change of as-is OOM heuristic?
>
yes, this is big change. And I'll cut out usable part ;)
Maybe I'll drop most of changes in patch 6's heuristics part.
(but selection of baseline for LOWMEM is not so bad.)

What I want in early stage is
- fix for mempolicy. (we need to pass nodemask)
- swap counting (regardless of oom)
- low_rss counting (if admited...)
- fork-bomb detector

Let me think how to make patch set small and easy to test.

> Anyway,I need time to dive the code and test it.
> Maybe weekend.
>
> Thanks for great effort. :)
>
Thank you for review.

Regards,
-Kame

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:22 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> Hi, as discussed in "Memory overcommit" threads, I started rewrite.
>>
>> This is just for showing "I started" (not just chating or sleeping ;)
>>
>> All implemtations are not fixed yet. So feel free to do any comments.
>> This set is for minimum change set, I think. Some more rich functions
>> can be implemented based on this.
>>
>> All patches are against "mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2009-11-01-10-01"
>>
>> Patches are organized as
>>
>> (1) pass oom-killer more information, classification and fix mempolicy
>> case.
>> (2) counting swap usage
>> (3) counting lowmem usage
>> (4) fork bomb detector/killer
>> (5) check expansion of total_vm
>> (6) rewrite __badness().
>>
>> passed small tests on x86-64 boxes.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Kame
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim