From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932336Ab0KNV67 (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:58:59 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.35]:25338 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753242Ab0KNV66 (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:58:58 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=ml55vum4liFitHk+XgM1oJsAKfkK89YKW577OMn3Zyc2nB9U5SguYI+Ffx1DG66Rab QHKImJ9Iljg13Nee1GGg== Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:58:51 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: KOSAKI Motohiro cc: LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Ying Han , Bodo Eggert <7eggert@web.de>, Mandeep Singh Baines , "Figo.zhang" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert oom rewrite series In-Reply-To: <20101114133543.E00A.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20101114133543.E00A.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Linus, > > Please apply this. this patch revert commits of oom changes since v2.6.35. > > briefly says, "oom: badness heuristic rewrite" was merges by mistaken. > It haven't been passed our design nor code review. then multiple bug reports > has been popped up. I believe evey patches should pass a usecase and a code > review :-/ > That's inaccurate, there haven't been multiple bug reports popping up since the rewrite; in fact, there hasn't been a single bug report. There have been two changes to the oom killer since the rewrite: - we now kill all threads sharing the oom killed task that share the ->mm since we can't free any memory without them exiting as well, and - we count threads that are immune from oom kill attached to an ->mm so we can avoid needlessly killing tasks that aren't immune themselves but have other threads sharing the ->mm that are. Both of those changes were needed in the old oom killer as well, they have nothing to do with the rewrite. Also, stating that the new heuristic doesn't address CAP_SYS_RESOURCE approrpiately isn't a bug report, it's the desired behavior. I eliminated all of the arbitrary heursitics in the old heuristic that we had the remove internally as well so that is predictable as possible and achieves the oom killer's sole goal: to kill the most memory-hogging task that is eligible to allow memory allocations in the current context to succeed. CAP_SYS_RESOURCE threads have full control over their oom killing priority by /proc/pid/oom_score_adj and need no consideration in the heuristic by default since it otherwise allows for the probability that multiple tasks will need to be killed when a CAP_SYS_RESOURCE thread uses an egregious amount of memory. > The problem is, DavidR patches don't refrect real world usecase at all > and breaking them. He can talk about the userland is wrong. but such > excuse doesn't solve real world issue. it makes no sense. > As mentioned just a few minutes ago in another thread, there is no userspace breakage with the rewrite and you're only complaining here about the deprecation of /proc/pid/oom_adj for a period of two years. Until it's removed in 2012 or later, it maps to the linear scale that oom_score_adj uses rather than its old exponential scale that was unusable for prioritization because of (1) the extremely low resolution, and (2) the arbitrary heuristics that preceeded it. You've proposed various forms of your revert (this is the fifth one) and I've responded in a very respectful and technical way each time even though you have repeatedly called me stupid. Linus is under the impression that this is some kind of flamewar when in reality it's only a desperate attempt of yours to start one, this kind of thing just really bounces off of me on a personal level. I will, however, continue to remain professional.