From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@novell.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@sgi.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove OOM killer from try_to_free_pages / all_unreclaimable braindamage
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 08:28:58 -0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041106102858.GC22514@logos.cnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1099706150.2810.147.camel@thomas>
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 02:55:50AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 02:20 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 03:32:50PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 05, 2004 12:01 pm, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > In my opinion the correct approach is to trigger the OOM killer
> > > > when kswapd is unable to free pages. Once that is done, the number
> > > > of tasks inside page reclaim is irrelevant.
> > >
> > > That makes sense.
> >
> > I don't like it, kswapd may fail balancing because there's a GFP_DMA
> > allocation that eat the last dma page, but we should not kill tasks if
> > we fail to balance in kswapd, we should kill tasks only when no fail
> > path exists (i.e. only during page faults, everything else in the kernel
> > has a fail path and it should never trigger oom).
> >
> > If you move it in kswapd there's no way to prevent oom-killing from a
> > syscall allocation (I guess even right now it would go wrong in this
> > sense, but at least right now it's more fixable). I want to move the oom
> > kill outside the alloc_page paths. The oom killing is all about the page
> > faults not having a fail path, and in turn the oom killing should be
> > moved in the page fault code, not in the allocator. Everything else
> > should keep returning -ENOMEM to the caller.
> >
> > So to me moving the oom killer into kswapd looks a regression.
>
> My point is not where oom-killer is triggered. My point is the decision
> criteria of oom-killer, when it is finally invoked, which process to
> kill. That's kind of independend of your patch. Your patch corrects the
> context in which oom-killer is called. My concern is that the decision
> critrion which process should be killed is not sufficient. In my case it
> kills sshd instead of a process which forks a bunch of child processes.
> Thats just wrong, because it takes away the chance to log into the
> machine remotely and fix the problem.
Hi Thomas,
Yes your patches are correct and needed independantly of where OOM killer
is triggered from.
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-06 10:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-05 20:01 Marcelo Tosatti
2004-11-05 23:32 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-11-05 23:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2004-11-06 1:20 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-11-06 1:26 ` Nick Piggin
2004-11-06 1:36 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-11-06 1:50 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-11-06 9:47 ` Hugh Dickins
2004-11-06 10:53 ` Nick Piggin
2004-11-06 15:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-11-06 15:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-11-06 16:21 ` Hugh Dickins
2004-12-10 6:02 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-11-06 11:37 ` Nikita Danilov
2004-11-06 15:32 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-11-06 16:54 ` Nikita Danilov
2004-11-06 17:44 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-11-06 19:24 ` Nikita Danilov
2004-11-07 1:16 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-11-06 10:11 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-11-06 1:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2004-11-06 10:28 ` Marcelo Tosatti [this message]
2004-11-17 22:54 ` Werner Almesberger
2004-11-17 23:27 ` Chris Ross
2004-11-18 0:04 ` Werner Almesberger
2004-11-18 0:28 ` Chris Ross
2004-11-18 1:14 ` Werner Almesberger
2004-11-18 8:20 ` Chris Ross
2004-11-18 10:01 ` Werner Almesberger
2004-11-18 14:44 ` Thomas Gleixner
2004-11-18 15:10 ` Chris Friesen
2004-11-06 10:05 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-11-06 15:44 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-11-06 15:52 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-11-06 17:09 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-11-07 0:48 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-11-07 11:21 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-11-06 12:53 ` [PATCH] Remove OOM killer Andries Brouwer
2004-11-06 10:41 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-11-07 9:26 ` Marko Macek
2004-11-08 16:27 ` [PATCH] Remove OOM killer from try_to_free_pages / all_unreclaimable braindamage Marcelo Tosatti
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=20041106102858.GC22514@logos.cnet \
--to=marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=andrea@novell.com \
--cc=jbarnes@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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