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 47A896B0083 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:19:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from kpbe15.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe15.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.79]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o1FMK6ao015024 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:20:07 -0800 Received: from pxi12 (pxi12.prod.google.com [10.243.27.12]) by kpbe15.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o1FMK3nx005945 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:20:03 -0800 Received: by pxi12 with SMTP id 12so3587350pxi.33 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:20:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:20:01 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes Subject: [patch -mm 1/9 v2] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: 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 , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Tasks that do not share the same set of allowed nodes with the task that triggered the oom should not be considered as candidates for oom kill. Tasks in other cpusets with a disjoint set of mems would be unfairly penalized otherwise because of oom conditions elsewhere; an extreme example could unfairly kill all other applications on the system if a single task in a user's cpuset sets itself to OOM_DISABLE and then uses more memory than allowed. Killing tasks outside of current's cpuset rarely would free memory for current anyway. Acked-by: Rik van Riel Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Signed-off-by: David Rientjes --- mm/oom_kill.c | 12 +++--------- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c --- a/mm/oom_kill.c +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(zone_scan_lock); /* #define DEBUG */ /* - * Is all threads of the target process nodes overlap ours? + * Do all threads of the target process overlap our allowed nodes? */ static int has_intersects_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk) { @@ -167,14 +167,6 @@ unsigned long badness(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long uptime) points /= 4; /* - * If p's nodes don't overlap ours, it may still help to kill p - * because p may have allocated or otherwise mapped memory on - * this node before. However it will be less likely. - */ - if (!has_intersects_mems_allowed(p)) - points /= 8; - - /* * Adjust the score by oom_adj. */ if (oom_adj) { @@ -266,6 +258,8 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned long *ppoints, continue; if (mem && !task_in_mem_cgroup(p, mem)) continue; + if (!has_intersects_mems_allowed(p)) + continue; /* * This task already has access to memory reserves and is -- 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