From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-bk0-f43.google.com (mail-bk0-f43.google.com [209.85.214.43]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81B746B0031 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:05:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-bk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id mx11so870870bkb.2 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:05:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from zene.cmpxchg.org (zene.cmpxchg.org. [2a01:238:4224:fa00:ca1f:9ef3:caee:a2bd]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lk6si1216550bkb.132.2014.01.23.20.05.42 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:05:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:05:31 -0500 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [patch] mm: oom_kill: revert 3% system memory bonus for privileged tasks Message-ID: <20140124040531.GF4407@cmpxchg.org> References: <20140115234308.GB4407@cmpxchg.org> <20140116070709.GM6963@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 08:53:07PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > How about simply using 3% of the root process's points so that root > processes get some bonus compared to non-root processes with the same > memory usage and it's scaled to the usage rather than amount of available > memory? > > So rather than points /= 4, we do > > if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > points -= (points * 3) / 100; > > instead. Sound good? Yes, should be okay. Do you want to send a patch? Want me to update mine? -- 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