From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA78AC10F13 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:54:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9724E2133D for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:54:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="fNWDni2W" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726856AbfDKQyX (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:54:23 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:47074 "EHLO mail-wr1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726014AbfDKQyW (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:54:22 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id t17so8243982wrw.13 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:54:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Otu8oQ57F7UNmqh12Qrt5qvVebAwqh7zepUUOR2psCw=; b=fNWDni2WBHljHOFUUJspzmpa63RWuYdVIS0I3zOyBS2lLLO6KySQ51cmWNiO7hc2Zl ECt/C5Ky670bJQ5Y/0J0LhOCfc0Lt2Iwpob0TZ7SIP5kv9C9NNRB1wStqN/N2tYLuIKw wZg0KFFK27GJ1pbKVFkdVwDqOyreBFZk/jafrt6UExSb4bI4BAkAjcPUss8hpIGyWHct 5ikRIfAdd9LNMlN4QIMJoanmN2oiEoSZWVAINnP8ESOpbf1mzxDB7iVXd9gmjJZUG9zF Ju866VB9mBqZkVotHQnuvZKKWpWRfOzBfvhObdATWC3h+6KUBTdrH/MXs5IMpClUYU84 G7mQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Otu8oQ57F7UNmqh12Qrt5qvVebAwqh7zepUUOR2psCw=; b=AEbj1dCNevHD2UJXrSswP26aZ7yRUITBKouFoPi8mxN0QNQcgQX7bK7KbQ2NvZNxKn OwE8458X46id+2kO2GDtVFXXzkyT4Wzxp20mkecAqU3OPaSBP9XjjPq4tNEUX7ld3hiO ii8trMPTQFEJVJ98Ayq9eI3Ubk4KSpJsUp1Uwc+ftBoh6VPdDa304VyywCXuKigvVLV1 vGI/Hj6vw800Wvjx3NC05yMFsynKdvpLCrX7pOX1yGYmYfO8WgirVqd3BJne9oNFn8UI HKCmYN6SnsukiRI3OXp9bEP/2fFgm4xLKCTiHSj84w1nylhjk0VsWmi1Q/Jeyghx4PK6 gTow== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVDnZs5QScQQ7As4uU1FK4lKPuU6cdneyWHq4SMQ2kRwHG2tOlu iA11Hhx5p9ux0Hvgk65n9JgPWE0LHK3OzU7GZljgjQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwj1boQo/nBHeqnGk+RcSMgv151Qay/U+p6/XYdYT7weeYhs8WiIbKmtBlUigIKITxE7cnT6zBNx7yHx2o6yRk= X-Received: by 2002:adf:cf0c:: with SMTP id o12mr12832082wrj.16.1555001660732; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:54:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190411014353.113252-1-surenb@google.com> <20190411121633.GV10383@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20190411121633.GV10383@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Suren Baghdasaryan Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:54:09 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process To: Michal Hocko Cc: Rik van Riel , Suren Baghdasaryan , Andrew Morton , Daniel Colascione , Jann Horn , Minchan Kim , Tetsuo Handa , kernel-team , David Rientjes , LKML , Matthew Wilcox , linux-mm , Johannes Weiner , Shakeel Butt , Souptick Joarder , yuzhoujian@didichuxing.com, Joel Fernandes , Tim Murray , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, Roman Gushchin , Christian Brauner , ebiederm@xmission.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:16 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 11-04-19 07:51:21, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-04-10 at 18:43 -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan via Lsf-pc wrote: > > > The time to kill a process and free its memory can be critical when > > > the > > > killing was done to prevent memory shortages affecting system > > > responsiveness. > > > > The OOM killer is fickle, and often takes a fairly > > long time to trigger. Speeding up what happens after > > that seems like the wrong thing to optimize. > > > > Have you considered using something like oomd to > > proactively kill tasks when memory gets low, so > > you do not have to wait for an OOM kill? > > AFAIU, this is the point here. They probably have a user space OOM > killer implementation and want to achieve killing to be as swift as > possible. That is correct. Android has a userspace daemon called lmkd (low memory killer daemon) to respond to memory pressure before things get bad enough for kernel oom-killer to get involved. So this asynchronous reclaim optimization would allow lmkd do its job more efficiently. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kernel-team" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@android.com. >