Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 16 Jul 2021 07:19:24 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     minyard@acm.org
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom_kill: oom_score_adj broken for processes with small
 memory usage
Message-ID: <YPEW3H+W/uiRYIfn@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20210701125430.836308-1-minyard@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210701125430.836308-1-minyard@acm.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 01-07-21 07:54:30, minyard@acm.org wrote:
> From: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>
> 
> If you have a process with less than 1000 totalpages, the calculation:
> 
>   adj = (long)p->signal->oom_score_adj;
>   ...
>   adj *= totalpages / 1000;
> 
> will always result in adj being zero no matter what oom_score_adj is,
> which could result in the wrong process being picked for killing.
> 
> Fix by adding 1000 to totalpages before dividing.

Yes, this is a known limitation of the oom_score_adj and its scale.
Is this a practical problem to be solved though? I mean 0-1000 pages is
not really that much different from imprecision at a larger scale where
tasks are effectively considered equal.

I have to say I do not really like the proposed workaround. It doesn't
really solve the problem yet it adds another special case.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs