From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: oom_kill: revert 3% system memory bonus for privileged tasks
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 02:07:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140116070709.GM6963@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1401151614480.15665@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 04:18:47PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> > With a63d83f427fb ("oom: badness heuristic rewrite"), the OOM killer
> > tries to avoid killing privileged tasks by subtracting 3% of overall
> > memory (system or cgroup) from their per-task consumption. But as a
> > result, all root tasks that consume less than 3% of overall memory are
> > considered equal, and so it only takes 33+ privileged tasks pushing
> > the system out of memory for the OOM killer to do something stupid and
> > kill sshd or dhclient. For example, on a 32G machine it can't tell
> > the difference between the 1M agetty and the 10G fork bomb member.
> >
> > The changelog describes this 3% boost as the equivalent to the global
> > overcommit limit being 3% higher for privileged tasks, but this is not
> > the same as discounting 3% of overall memory from _every privileged
> > task individually_ during OOM selection.
> >
> > Revert back to the old priority boost of pretending root tasks are
> > only a quarter of their actual size.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, I think this could potentially be too much of a bonus. On
> your same 32GB machine, if a root process is using 18GB and a user process
> is using 14GB, the user process ends up getting selected while the current
> discount of 3% still selects the root process.
>
> I do like the idea of scaling this bonus depending on points, however. I
> think it would be better if we could scale the discount but also limit it
> to some sane value.
I just reverted to the /= 4 because we had that for a long time and it
seemed to work. I don't really mind either way as long as we get rid
of that -3%. Do you have a suggestion?
--
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:[~2014-01-16 7:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-15 23:43 Johannes Weiner
2014-01-16 0:18 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-16 7:07 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2014-01-22 4:53 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-24 4:05 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-26 3:48 ` [patch] mm, oom: base root bonus on current usage David Rientjes
2014-01-26 15:27 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-29 20:28 ` Andrew Morton
2014-01-30 0:35 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-30 2:12 ` Johannes Weiner
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=20140116070709.GM6963@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--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