From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EB7ED6B01EA for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 03:20:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o517KruN007255 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:20:53 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D461145DE58 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:20:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B5945DE52 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:20:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41CCFE08006 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:20:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.106]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B0FE08008 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:20:50 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [patch -mm 01/18] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <20100601162030.244B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:20:50 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Nick Piggin , Oleg Nesterov , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Balbir Singh , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > 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. To use a sane heuristic, we must ensure that killing a > task would likely free memory for current and avoid needlessly killing > others at all costs just because their potential memory freeing is > unknown. It is better to kill current than another task needlessly. > > Acked-by: Rik van Riel > Acked-by: Nick Piggin > Acked-by: Balbir Singh > Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes ack -- 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