From: CAI Qian <caiqian@redhat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
hughd@google.com,
kamezawa hiroyu <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
minchan kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
oleg@redhat.com, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] oom: oom-killer don't use proportion of system-ram internally
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 04:32:03 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1459757587.187076.1306225923651.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105231547060.17840@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
----- Original Message -----
> On Mon, 23 May 2011, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> > I already suggested an alternative patch to CAI Qian to greatly
> > increase
> > the granularity of the oom score from a range of 0-1000 to 0-10000
> > to
> > differentiate between tasks within 0.01% of available memory (16MB
> > on CAI
> > Qian's 16GB system). I'll propose this officially in a separate
> > email.
> >
>
> This is an alternative patch as earlier proposed with suggested
> improvements from Minchan. CAI, would it be possible to test this out
> on
> your usecase?
Sure, will test KOSAKI Motohiro's v2 patches plus this one.
> I'm indifferent to the actual scale of OOM_SCORE_MAX_FACTOR; it could
> be
> 10 as proposed in this patch or even increased higher for higher
> resolution.
>
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ int sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task;
> int sysctl_oom_dump_tasks = 1;
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(zone_scan_lock);
>
> +#define OOM_SCORE_MAX_FACTOR 10
> +#define OOM_SCORE_MAX (OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX * OOM_SCORE_MAX_FACTOR)
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> /**
> * has_intersects_mems_allowed() - check task eligiblity for kill
> @@ -160,7 +163,7 @@ unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p,
> struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> */
> if (p->flags & PF_OOM_ORIGIN) {
> task_unlock(p);
> - return 1000;
> + return OOM_SCORE_MAX;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -177,32 +180,38 @@ unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p,
> struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> points = get_mm_rss(p->mm) + p->mm->nr_ptes;
> points += get_mm_counter(p->mm, MM_SWAPENTS);
>
> - points *= 1000;
> + points *= OOM_SCORE_MAX;
> points /= totalpages;
> task_unlock(p);
>
> /*
> - * Root processes get 3% bonus, just like the __vm_enough_memory()
> - * implementation used by LSMs.
> + * Root processes get a bonus of 1% per 10% of memory used.
> */
> - if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> - points -= 30;
> + if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
> + int bonus;
> + int granularity;
> +
> + bonus = OOM_SCORE_MAX / 100; /* bonus is 1% */
> + granularity = OOM_SCORE_MAX / 10; /* granularity is 10% */
> +
> + points -= bonus * (points / granularity);
> + }
>
> /*
> * /proc/pid/oom_score_adj ranges from -1000 to +1000 such that it may
> * either completely disable oom killing or always prefer a certain
> * task.
> */
> - points += p->signal->oom_score_adj;
> + points += p->signal->oom_score_adj * OOM_SCORE_MAX_FACTOR;
>
> /*
> * Never return 0 for an eligible task that may be killed since it's
> - * possible that no single user task uses more than 0.1% of memory
> and
> + * possible that no single user task uses more than 0.01% of memory
> and
> * no single admin tasks uses more than 3.0%.
> */
> if (points <= 0)
> return 1;
> - return (points < 1000) ? points : 1000;
> + return (points < OOM_SCORE_MAX) ? points : OOM_SCORE_MAX;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -314,7 +323,7 @@ static struct task_struct
> *select_bad_process(unsigned int *ppoints,
> */
> if (p == current) {
> chosen = p;
> - *ppoints = 1000;
> + *ppoints = OOM_SCORE_MAX;
> } else {
> /*
> * If this task is not being ptraced on exit,
--
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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-24 8:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-20 8:00 [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix oom killer doesn't work at all if system have > gigabytes memory (aka CAI founded issue) KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-20 8:01 ` [PATCH 1/5] oom: improve dump_tasks() show items KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-23 22:16 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-20 8:02 ` [PATCH 2/5] oom: kill younger process first KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-23 2:37 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-23 22:20 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-20 8:03 ` [PATCH 3/5] oom: oom-killer don't use proportion of system-ram internally KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-23 3:59 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 1:14 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 1:32 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-23 4:02 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 1:44 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 3:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-23 22:28 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-23 22:48 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-24 1:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 8:32 ` CAI Qian [this message]
2011-05-26 7:08 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-27 19:12 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-24 2:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-26 9:34 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-26 9:56 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-20 8:04 ` [PATCH 4/5] oom: don't kill random process KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-23 4:31 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 1:53 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 8:46 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 8:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 9:04 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 9:09 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 9:20 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 9:38 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-23 22:32 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-24 1:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 1:39 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-24 1:55 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 1:58 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-24 2:03 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-25 23:50 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-30 1:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:48 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-31 4:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-20 8:05 ` [PATCH 5/5] oom: merge oom_kill_process() with oom_kill_task() KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 1:33 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix oom killer doesn't work at all if system have > gigabytes memory (aka CAI founded issue) CAI Qian
2011-05-31 4:10 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:14 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-31 4:34 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:52 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-31 7:04 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 7:50 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-31 7:56 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 7:59 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-31 8:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 10:01 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-06-01 1:17 ` CAI Qian
2011-06-01 3:32 ` Minchan Kim
2011-06-06 3:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-06-06 14:44 ` Minchan Kim
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=1459757587.187076.1306225923651.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com \
--to=caiqian@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@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