From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] oom: /proc/<pid>/oom_score treat kernel thread honestly
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:36:08 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100701143608.GB16383@barrios-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100701085309.DA16.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 09:07:02AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:30:19PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > If kernel thread are using use_mm(), badness() return positive value.
> > > This is not big issue because caller care it correctly. but there is
> > > one exception, /proc/<pid>/oom_score call badness() directly and
> > > don't care the task is regular process.
> > >
> > > another example, /proc/1/oom_score return !0 value. but it's unkillable.
> > > This incorrectness makes confusing to admin a bit.
> >
> > Hmm. If it is a really problem, Could we solve it in proc_oom_score itself?
>
> probably, no good idea. For maintainance view, all oom related code should
> be gathered in oom_kill.c.
> If you dislike to add messy into badness(), I hope to make badness_for_oom_score()
I am looking forward to seeing your next series.
Thanks, Kosaki.
P.S)
I think if the number of patch series is the bigger than #10,
It would be better to include or point url of all-at-once patch
in patch series.
In case of your patch, post patches changes pre patches
It could make hard review unless the reviewer merge patches into tree to
see the final figure.
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-01 14:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-30 9:25 [mmotm 0611][PATCH 00/11] various OOM bugfixes v3 KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 9:27 ` [PATCH 01/11] oom: don't try to kill oom_unkillable child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 9:27 ` [PATCH 02/11] oom: oom_kill_process() doesn't select kthread child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 13:55 ` Minchan Kim
2010-07-01 0:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-01 13:38 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-30 9:28 ` [PATCH 03/11] oom: make oom_unkillable_task() helper function KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 14:19 ` Minchan Kim
2010-07-01 0:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 9:29 ` [PATCH 04/11] oom: oom_kill_process() need to check p is unkillable KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 13:57 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-30 9:30 ` [PATCH 05/11] oom: /proc/<pid>/oom_score treat kernel thread honestly KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 14:03 ` Minchan Kim
2010-07-01 0:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-01 14:36 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2010-06-30 9:31 ` [PATCH 06/11] oom: kill duplicate OOM_DISABLE check KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 14:10 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-30 9:31 ` [PATCH 07/11] oom: move OOM_DISABLE check from oom_kill_task to out_of_memory() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 14:20 ` Minchan Kim
2010-07-01 0:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 9:32 ` [PATCH 08/11] oom: cleanup has_intersects_mems_allowed() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 9:32 ` [PATCH 09/11] oom: remove child->mm check from oom_kill_process() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 14:30 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-30 9:33 ` [PATCH 10/11] oom: give the dying task a higher priority KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 9:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 14:40 ` Minchan Kim
2010-07-02 21:49 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-06 0:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-06 0:50 ` [PATCH 1/2] security: add const to security_task_setscheduler() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-06 0:51 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched: make sched_param arugment static variables in some sched_setscheduler() caller KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-06 22:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-07-06 23:12 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-06 23:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-07-07 0:02 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-07 19:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-30 9:34 ` [PATCH 11/11] oom: multi threaded process coredump don't make deadlock KOSAKI Motohiro
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=20100701143608.GB16383@barrios-desktop \
--to=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--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