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>
next prev 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