From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7416B01B7
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue,  1 Jun 2010 03:18:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from kpbe14.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe14.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.78])
	by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o517IJV0022023
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 00:18:19 -0700
Received: from pxi17 (pxi17.prod.google.com [10.243.27.17])
	by kpbe14.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o517IHwh008932
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 00:18:18 -0700
Received: by pxi17 with SMTP id 17so2071393pxi.25
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 00:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: [patch -mm 01/18] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1006010008410.29202@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1006010013080.29202@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1006010008410.29202@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>, Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>

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.  To use a sane heuristic, we must ensure that killing a
task would likely free memory for current and avoid needlessly killing
others at all costs just because their potential memory freeing is
unknown.  It is better to kill current than another task needlessly.

Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Acked-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
---
 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
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ 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)
 {
@@ -168,14 +168,6 @@ 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) {
@@ -267,6 +259,8 @@ 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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>