linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>,
	andrea@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] oom: serialize for cpusets
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:33:37 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706281830280.9573@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.0.99.0706281104490.20980@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, David Rientjes wrote:

> If you attach all your system tasks to a single small node and then 
> attempt to allocate large amounts of memory in that node, tasks get killed 
> unnecessarily.  This is a good way to approximate a cpuset's memory 
> pressure in real-world examples.  The actual rogue task can avoid getting 
> killed by simply not allocating the last N kB in that node while other 
> tasks, such as sshd or sendmail, require memory on a spurious basis.  So 
> we've often seen tasks such as those get OOM killed even though they don't 
> alleviate the condition much at all: sshd and sendmail are not normally 
> memory hogs.

Yeah but to get there seems to require intention on the part of the 
rogue tasks.

> The much better policy in terms of sharing memory among a cpuset's task is 
> to kill the actual rogue task which we can estimate pretty well with 
> select_bad_process() since it takes into consideration, most importantly, 
> the total VM size.

Sorry that is too expensive. I did not see that initially. Thanks Paul for 
reminding me. I am at the OLS and my mindshare for this is pretty limited 
right now.

> So my belief is that it is better to kill one large memory-hogging task in 
> a cpuset instead of killing multiple smaller ones based on their 
> scheduling and unfortunate luck of being the one to enter the OOM killer.  
> Even worse is when the OOM killer, which is not at all serialized for 
> cpuset-constrained allocations at present, kills multiple smaller tasks 
> before killing the rogue task.  Then those previous kills were unnecessary 
> and certainly would qualify as a strong example for why current git's 
> behavior is broken.

The current behavior will usually kill the memory hogging task and it can 
do so with minimal effort. If there is a whole array of memory hogging 
tasks then the existing approach will be much easier on the system.

--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-06-29  1:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-06-27 14:44 [patch 1/4] oom: extract deadlock helper function David Rientjes
2007-06-27 14:44 ` [patch 2/4] oom: select process to kill for cpusets David Rientjes
2007-06-27 14:44   ` [patch 3/4] oom: extract select helper function David Rientjes
2007-06-27 14:44     ` [patch 4/4] oom: serialize for cpusets David Rientjes
2007-06-27 21:53       ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-27 22:13         ` Paul Jackson
2007-06-28  6:24           ` David Rientjes
2007-06-28  7:33             ` Paul Jackson
2007-06-28  8:05               ` David Rientjes
2007-06-28  9:03                 ` Paul Jackson
2007-06-28 18:13                   ` David Rientjes
2007-06-28 18:55                     ` Paul Jackson
2007-06-28 19:27                       ` Paul Menage
2007-06-28 20:15                         ` Paul Jackson
2007-06-28 20:43                       ` David Rientjes
2007-06-29  1:33                     ` Christoph Lameter [this message]
2007-06-29  4:07                       ` David Rientjes
2007-06-28  0:26         ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-28 20:41       ` [patch 5/4] oom: add oom_kill_asking_task flag David Rientjes
2007-06-28 22:07         ` Paul Jackson
2007-06-27 21:52   ` [patch 2/4] oom: select process to kill for cpusets Christoph Lameter
2007-06-28  6:13     ` David Rientjes
2007-07-26  6:15 ` [patch 1/4] oom: extract deadlock helper function David Rientjes
2007-07-26  6:25   ` Andrew Morton
2007-07-26  7:29     ` David Rientjes

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=Pine.LNX.4.64.0706281830280.9573@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com \
    --to=clameter@sgi.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andrea@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=pj@sgi.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