linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch 4/7 -mm] oom: badness heuristic rewrite
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:31:14 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1002111524470.4438@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100211151135.91586cd1.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Can you add newly-named knobs (rather than modifying the existing
> > > ones), deprecate the old ones and then massage writes to the old ones
> > > so that they talk into the new framework?
> > > 
> > 
> > That's what I was thinking, add /proc/pid/oom_score_adj that is just added 
> > into the badness score (and is then exported with /proc/pid/oom_score) 
> > like this patch did with oom_adj and then scale it into oom_adj units for 
> > that tunable.  A write to either oom_adj or oom_score_adj would change the 
> > other,
> 
> How ugly is all this?
> 

The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, users need to be able to 
specify how much memory vital tasks should be able to use compared to 
others without getting penalized and that needs to be done as a fraction 
of available memory.  I wanted to avoid it originally by not having to 
introduce another tunable, but I understand the need for a stable ABI and 
backwards compatability.  The way /proc/pid/oom_adj currently works as a 
bitshift on the badness score is nearly impossible to tune correctly so  
change in scoring is inevitable.  Luckily, users who tune either can 
ignore the other until such time as oom_adj can be removed.

> There _are_ things we can do though.  Detect a write to the old file and
> emit a WARN_ON_ONCE("you suck").  Wait a year, turn it into
> WARN_ON("you really suck").  Wait a year, then remove it.
> 

Ok, I'll use WARN_ON_ONCE() to let the user know of the deprecation and 
then add an entry to Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt.

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2010-02-11 23:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-02-10 16:32 [patch 0/7 -mm] oom killer rewrite David Rientjes
2010-02-10 16:32 ` [patch 1/7 -mm] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset David Rientjes
2010-02-10 17:08   ` Rik van Riel
2010-02-11 23:52   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-15  2:56   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-15 22:06     ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16  4:52       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-16  6:01         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-16  7:03         ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16  8:49           ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16  9:04             ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16  9:10               ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16  8:46         ` David Rientjes
2010-02-10 16:32 ` [patch 2/7 -mm] oom: sacrifice child with highest badness score for parent David Rientjes
2010-02-10 20:52   ` Rik van Riel
2010-02-12  0:00   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-12  0:15     ` David Rientjes
2010-02-13  2:49   ` Minchan Kim
2010-02-15  3:08   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-10 16:32 ` [patch 3/7 -mm] oom: select task from tasklist for mempolicy ooms David Rientjes
2010-02-10 22:47   ` Rik van Riel
2010-02-15  5:03   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-15 22:11     ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16  5:15       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-16 21:52         ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17  0:48           ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17  1:13             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-10 16:32 ` [patch 4/7 -mm] oom: badness heuristic rewrite David Rientjes
2010-02-11  4:10   ` Rik van Riel
2010-02-11  9:14     ` David Rientjes
2010-02-11 15:07       ` Nick Bowler
2010-02-11 21:01         ` David Rientjes
2010-02-11 21:43       ` Andrew Morton
2010-02-11 21:51         ` David Rientjes
2010-02-11 22:31           ` Andrew Morton
2010-02-11 22:42             ` David Rientjes
2010-02-11 23:11               ` Andrew Morton
2010-02-11 23:31                 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2010-02-11 23:37                   ` Andrew Morton
2010-02-12 13:56       ` Minchan Kim
2010-02-12 21:00         ` David Rientjes
2010-02-13  2:45           ` Minchan Kim
2010-02-15 21:54             ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 13:14               ` Minchan Kim
2010-02-16 21:41                 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17  7:41                   ` Minchan Kim
2010-02-17  9:23                     ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 13:08                       ` Minchan Kim
2010-02-15  8:05   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-10 16:32 ` [patch 5/7 -mm] oom: replace sysctls with quick mode David Rientjes
2010-02-12  0:26   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-12  9:58     ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15  8:09   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-15 22:15     ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16  5:25       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-16  9:04         ` David Rientjes
2010-02-10 16:32 ` [patch 6/7 -mm] oom: avoid oom killer for lowmem allocations David Rientjes
2010-02-11  4:13   ` Rik van Riel
2010-02-11  9:19     ` David Rientjes
2010-02-11 14:08       ` Rik van Riel
2010-02-12  1:28   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-12 10:06     ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15  0:09       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-15 22:01         ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15  8:29   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-10 16:32 ` [patch 7/7 -mm] oom: remove unnecessary code and cleanup David Rientjes
2010-02-12  0:12   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-12  0:21     ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15  8:31       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-15  2:51 ` [patch 0/7 -mm] oom killer rewrite KOSAKI Motohiro

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=alpine.DEB.2.00.1002111524470.4438@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
    --to=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=l.lunak@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=riel@redhat.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