From: John Sigler <linux.kernel@free.fr>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com>
Cc: Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@aitel.hist.no>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Runaway process and oom-killer
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:01:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46711215.4070108@free.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <467008E9.7070902@nortel.com>
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Helge Hafting wrote:
>
>> My guess:
>> Something needs memory but finds there is none to be had
>> oom-killer is invoked and targets myapp.
>> myapp takes some time to die. Particularly, the memory it uses
>> isn't freed up instantly.
>
> Has anyone considered actually bumping up the priority of the task being
> killed so that it gets to run and free up its resources in a timely manner?
On this system,
myapp runs in SCHED_RR with priority 80.
IRQ handlers run in SCHED_FIFO with priority 50.
# ps -eo comm,class,rtprio,ni,pri --sort -rtprio
COMMAND CLS RTPRIO NI PRI
posix_cpu_timer FF 99 - 139
myapp RR 80 - 120
softirq-high/0 FF 50 - 90
softirq-timer/0 FF 50 - 90
softirq-net-tx/ FF 50 - 90
softirq-net-rx/ FF 50 - 90
softirq-block/0 FF 50 - 90
softirq-tasklet FF 50 - 90
softirq-sched/0 FF 50 - 90
softirq-hrtimer FF 50 - 90
softirq-rcu/0 FF 50 - 90
IRQ-7 FF 50 - 90
IRQ-8 FF 50 - 90
IRQ-14 FF 50 - 90
IRQ-12 FF 50 - 90
IRQ-1 FF 50 - 90
IRQ-10 FF 50 - 90
IRQ-11 FF 50 - 90
IRQ-5 FF 50 - 90
IRQ-3 FF 50 - 90
IRQ-4 FF 50 - 90
events/0 FF 1 - 41
init TS - 0 24
desched/0 TS - -10 34
khelper TS - -5 29
kthread TS - -5 27
kblockd/0 TS - -5 21
kacpid TS - -5 19
kseriod TS - -5 29
pdflush TS - 0 17
pdflush TS - 0 24
kswapd0 TS - -5 23
flush_filesd/0 TS - -5 29
aio/0 TS - -5 22
syslogd TS - 0 21
klogd TS - 0 21
sshd TS - 0 21
acpid TS - 0 16
agetty TS - 0 24
agetty TS - 0 21
agetty TS - 0 21
agetty TS - 0 21
[...]
How do the scheduling class and priority of the process come into play
when the kernel comes to reclaim memory after the oom-killer has decided
to snipe that particular process?
> We've done some experimenting with actually putting it in SCHED_RR and
> it seems to help (in the case of other busy SCHED_RR tasks on the
> system). Admittedly we have an older kernel, so behaviour may be
> different now.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
Regards.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-14 10:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-13 8:49 Runaway process and oom-killer John Sigler
2007-06-13 9:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-13 9:20 ` John Sigler
2007-06-13 13:29 ` Helge Hafting
2007-06-13 15:10 ` Chris Friesen
2007-06-13 15:26 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-14 10:01 ` John Sigler [this message]
2007-06-14 9:43 ` John Sigler
2007-06-14 12:56 ` Helge Hafting
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=46711215.4070108@free.fr \
--to=linux.kernel@free.fr \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=cfriesen@nortel.com \
--cc=helge.hafting@aitel.hist.no \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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