From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "Figo.zhang" <figo1802@gmail.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]mm/oom-kill: direct hardware access processes should get bonus
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 02:03:54 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1011150159330.2986@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101115095446.BF00.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > I think in cases of heuristics like this where we obviously want to give
> > some bonus to CAP_SYS_ADMIN that there is consistency with other bonuses
> > given elsewhere in the kernel.
>
> Keep comparision apple to apple. vm_enough_memory() account _virtual_ memory.
> oom-killer try to free _physical_ memory. It's unrelated.
>
It's not unrelated, the LSM function gives an arbitrary 3% bonus to
CAP_SYS_ADMIN. Such threads should also be preferred in the oom killer
over other threads since they tend to be more important but not an overly
drastic bias such that they don't get killed when using an egregious
amount of memory. So in selecting a small percentage of memory that tends
to be a significant bias but not overwhelming, I went with the 3% found
elsewhere in the kernel. __vm_enough_memory() doesn't have that
preference for any scientifically calculated reason, it's a heuristic just
like oom_badness().
> > > CAP_SYS_RAWIO mean the process has a direct hardware access privilege
> > > (eg X.org, RDB). and then, killing it might makes system crash.
> > >
> >
> > Then you would want to explicitly filter these tasks from oom kill just as
> > OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN works rather than giving them a memory quantity bonus.
>
> No. Why does userland recover your mistake?
>
You just said killing any CAP_SYS_RAWIO task may make the system crash, so
presuming that you don't want the system to crash, you are suggesting we
should make these threads completely immune? That's never been the case
(and isn't for oom_kill_allocating_task, either), so there's no history
you can draw from to support your argument.
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-15 10:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-02 1:43 [PATCH]oom-kill: " Figo.zhang
2010-11-02 3:10 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-02 14:24 ` Figo.zhang
2010-11-02 19:34 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-03 23:43 ` [PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE " Figo.zhang
2010-11-03 23:47 ` David Rientjes
[not found] ` <AANLkTimjfmLzr_9+Sf4gk0xGkFjffQ1VcCnwmCXA88R8@mail.gmail.com>
2010-11-04 1:38 ` Figo.zhang
2010-11-04 1:50 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-04 2:12 ` Figo.zhang
2010-11-04 2:54 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-04 4:42 ` Figo.zhang
2010-11-04 5:08 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-09 11:01 ` [PATCH " KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-09 12:24 ` Alan Cox
2010-11-09 21:06 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-09 21:25 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-10 14:38 ` Figo.zhang
2010-11-10 20:50 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-09 10:41 ` [PATCH]oom-kill: direct hardware access processes " KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-09 12:24 ` [PATCH v2]mm/oom-kill: " Figo.zhang
2010-11-09 21:16 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-10 14:48 ` Figo.zhang
2010-11-14 5:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-14 21:29 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-15 1:24 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-15 10:03 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2010-11-23 7:16 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-28 1:36 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-30 13:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-30 20:05 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-10 15:14 ` [PATCH v3]mm/oom-kill: " Figo.zhang
2010-11-10 15:24 ` Figo.zhang
2010-11-10 21:00 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-14 5:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-14 21:33 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-15 3:26 ` [PATCH] Revert oom rewrite series Figo.zhang
2010-11-15 10:14 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-15 10:57 ` Alan Cox
2010-11-15 20:54 ` David Rientjes
2010-11-23 7:16 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-01-04 7:51 ` [PATCH v3]mm/oom-kill: direct hardware access processes should get bonus Figo.zhang
2011-01-04 8:28 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-01-04 8:56 ` Figo.zhang
2011-01-06 0:55 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-01-05 3:32 ` 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=alpine.DEB.2.00.1011150159330.2986@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=figo1802@gmail.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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