From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "Figo.zhang" <zhangtianfei@leadcoretech.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
"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] Revert oom rewrite series
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:54:56 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1011151243460.8167@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101115105735.0f9c1a22@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The goal was to make the oom killer heuristic as predictable as possible
> > and to kill the most memory-hogging task to avoid having to recall it and
> > needlessly kill several tasks.
>
> Meta question - why is that a good thing. In a desktop environment it's
> frequently wrong, in a server environment it is often wrong. We had this
> before where people spend months fiddling with the vm and make it work
> slightly differently and it suits their workload, then other workloads go
> downhill. Then the cycle repeats.
>
Most of the arbitrary heuristics were removed from oom_badness(), things
like nice level, runtime, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE, etc., so that we only consider
the rss and swap usage of each application in comparison to each other
when deciding which task to kill. We give root tasks a 3% bonus since
they tend to be more important to the productivity or uptime of the
machine, which did exist -- albeit with a more dramatic impact -- in the
old heursitic.
You'll find that the new heuristic always kills the task consuming the
most amount of rss unless influenced by userspace via the tunables (or
within 3% of root tasks).
We always want to kill the most memory-hogging task because it avoids
needlessly killing additional tasks when we must immediately recall the
oom killer because we continue to allocate memory. If that task happens
to be of vital importance to userspace, then the user has full control
over tuning the oom killer priorities in such circumstances.
> > You have full control over disabling a task from being considered with
> > oom_score_adj just like you did with oom_adj. Since oom_adj is
> > deprecated for two years, you can even use the old interface until then.
>
> Which changeset added it to the Documentation directory as deprecated ?
>
51b1bd2a was the actual change that deprecated it, which was a direct
follow-up to a63d83f4 which actually obsoleted it.
--
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 20:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-02 1:43 [PATCH]oom-kill: direct hardware access processes should get bonus 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
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 [this message]
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
[not found] <20101114133543.E00A.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
[not found] ` <AANLkTikSq-qC28uurd17RGup92Kao7enCiGJkDnJG+94@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20101115093410.BEFD.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
[not found] ` <20101114181905.bc5b44f9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
[not found] ` <AANLkTik_SDaiu2eQsJ9+4ywLR5K5V1Od-hwop6gwas3F@mail.gmail.com>
2010-11-15 4:41 ` [PATCH] Revert oom rewrite series Figo.zhang
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.2.00.1011151243460.8167@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--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 \
--cc=zhangtianfei@leadcoretech.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