From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm v2] mm: introduce oom_adj_child
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:49:02 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7f54310137837631f2526d4e335287fc.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0907310231370.25447@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
>> > > Simply, reset_oom_adj_at_new_mm_context or some.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I think it's preferred to keep the name relatively short which is an
>> > unfortuante requirement in this case. I also prefer to start the name
>> > with "oom_adj" so it appears alongside /proc/pid/oom_adj when listed
>> > alphabetically.
>> >
>> But misleading name is bad.
>>
>
> Can you help think of any names that start with oom_adj_* and are
> relatively short? I'd happily ack it.
>
There have been traditional name "effective" as uid and euid.
then, per thread oom_adj as oom_adj
per proc oom_adj as effective_oom_adj
is an natural way as Unix, I think.
>> Why don't you think select_bad_process()-> oom_kill_task()
>> implementation is bad ?
>
> It livelocks if a thread is chosen and passed to oom_kill_task() while
> another per-thread oom_adj value is OOM_DISABLE for a thread sharing the
> same memory.
>
I say "why don't modify buggy selection logic?"
Why we have to scan all threads ?
As fs/proc/readdir does, you can scan only "process group leader".
per-thread scan itself is buggy because now we have per-process
effective-oom-adj.
>> IMHO, it's bad manner to fix an os-implementation problem by adding
>> _new_ user
>> interface which is hard to understand.
>>
>
> How else do you propose the oom killer use oom_adj values on a per-thread
> basis without considering other threads sharing the same memory?
As I wrote.
per-process(signal struct) or per-thread oom_adj and add
mm->effecitve_oom_adj
task scanning isn't necessary to do per-thread scan and you can scan
only process-group-leader. What's bad ?
If oom_score is problem, plz fix it to show effective_oom_score.
If you can wait until the end of August, plz wait. I'll do some.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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:[~2009-07-31 10:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-29 4:27 David Rientjes
2009-07-29 23:13 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-29 23:25 ` Paul Menage
2009-07-30 2:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-30 7:06 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-31 6:47 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-31 9:31 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-03 11:58 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 12:12 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-30 9:00 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-30 9:31 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-30 10:02 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-30 19:05 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-31 0:33 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-31 6:50 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-31 19:38 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-03 12:16 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-31 9:36 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-31 10:49 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [this message]
2009-07-31 19:18 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-01 1:10 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-01 20:26 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-03 1:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-03 7:59 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-03 8:02 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-03 8:08 ` David Rientjes
2009-08-03 8:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-03 8:55 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-03 12:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 12:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 12:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-08-03 16:17 ` Paul Menage
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=7f54310137837631f2526d4e335287fc.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com \
--to=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--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