From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E12C6B0047 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:51:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.73]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o1BLpdiG014254 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:51:39 GMT Received: from pxi9 (pxi9.prod.google.com [10.243.27.9]) by wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o1BLpDMo025419 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:51:37 -0800 Received: by pxi9 with SMTP id 9so1144921pxi.24 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:51:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:51:36 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [patch 4/7 -mm] oom: badness heuristic rewrite In-Reply-To: <20100211134343.4886499c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <4B73833D.5070008@redhat.com> <20100211134343.4886499c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: Rik van Riel , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Nick Piggin , Andrea Arcangeli , Balbir Singh , Lubos Lunak , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Changing any value that may have a tendency to be hardcoded elsewhere is > > always controversial, but I think the nature of /proc/pid/oom_adj allows > > us to do so for two specific reasons: > > > > - hardcoded values tend not the fall within a range, they tend to either > > always prefer a certain task for oom kill first or disable oom killing > > entirely. The current implementation uses this as a bitshift on a > > seemingly unpredictable and unscientific heuristic that is very > > difficult to predict at runtime. This means that fewer and fewer > > applications would hardcode a value of '8', for example, because its > > semantics depends entirely on RAM capacity of the system to begin with > > since badness() scores are only useful when used in comparison with > > other tasks. > > You'd be amazed what dumb things applications do. Get thee to > http://google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=[^a-z]oom_adj[^a-z]&sbtn=Search > and start reading. All 641 matches ;) > > Here's one which which writes -16: > http://google.com/codesearch/p?hl=en#eN5TNOm7KtI/trunk/wlan/vendor/asus/eeepc/init.rc&q=[^a-z]oom_adj[^a-z]&sa=N&cd=70&ct=rc > > Let's not change the ABI please. > Sigh, this is going to require the amount of system memory to be partitioned into OOM_ADJUST_MAX, 15, chunks and that's going to be the granularity at which we'll be able to either bias or discount memory usage of individual tasks by: instead of being able to do this with 0.1% granularity we'll now be limited to 100 / 15, or ~7%. That's ~9GB on my 128GB system just because this was originally a bitshift. The upside is that it's now linear and not exponential. -- 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