From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
"Figo.zhang" <zhangtianfei@leadcoretech.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE should get bonus
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:06:42 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1011091300510.7730@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101109122437.2e0d71fd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> The reverse can be argued equally - that they can unprotect themselves if
> necessary. In fact it seems to be a "point of view" sort of question
> which way you deal with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE, and that to me argues that
> changing from old expected behaviour to a new behaviour is a regression.
>
I didn't check earlier, but CAP_SYS_RESOURCE hasn't had a place in the oom
killer's heuristic in over five years, so what regression are we referring
to in this thread? These tasks already have full control over
oom_score_adj to modify its oom killing priority in either direction.
And, as I said, giving these threads a bonus to be less preferred doesn't
seem appropriate since (1) it's not a defined or expected behavior of
CAP_SYS_RESOURCE like it is for sysadmin tasks, and (2) these threads are
not bound by resource limits and thus have a higher liklihood of consuming
larger amounts of memory.
That's why I nack'd the patch in the first place and still do, there's no
regression here and it's not in the best interest of freeing a large
amount of memory which is the sole purpose of the oom killer.
Futhermore, the heuristic was entirely rewritten, but I wouldn't consider
all the old factors such as cputime and nice level being removed as
"regressions" since the aim was to make it more predictable and more
likely to kill a large consumer of memory such that we don't have to kill
more tasks in the near future.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-09 21:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ 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 [this message]
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
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.2.00.1011091300510.7730@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=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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).