Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755540AbZKBPon (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:44:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755317AbZKBPon (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:44:43 -0500 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:38539 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755348AbZKBPom (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:44:42 -0500 Message-ID: <7d6cb1fd385affaf02d3e1f4b648a3ce.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <28c262360911020704r45d7f4fmd347d270622fe2c5@mail.gmail.com> References: <20091102162244.9425e49b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <28c262360911020704r45d7f4fmd347d270622fe2c5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:44:44 +0900 (JST) Subject: Re: [RFC][-mm][PATCH 0/6] oom-killer: total renewal From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" To: "Minchan Kim" Cc: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" , aarcange@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com, vedran.furac@gmail.com, "hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2082 Lines: 79 Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi, Kame. > > I looked over the patch series. > It's rather big change of OOM. yes, bigger than I expected. > I see you and David want to make OOM fresh from scratch. > But, It makes for testers to test harder. > I see. Maybe I have to separate this to 2 or 3 stages. > I like your idea of fork-bomb detector. > Don't we use it without big change of as-is OOM heuristic? > yes, this is big change. And I'll cut out usable part ;) Maybe I'll drop most of changes in patch 6's heuristics part. (but selection of baseline for LOWMEM is not so bad.) What I want in early stage is - fix for mempolicy. (we need to pass nodemask) - swap counting (regardless of oom) - low_rss counting (if admited...) - fork-bomb detector Let me think how to make patch set small and easy to test. > Anyway,I need time to dive the code and test it. > Maybe weekend. > > Thanks for great effort. :) > Thank you for review. Regards, -Kame > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:22 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > wrote: >> Hi, as discussed in "Memory overcommit" threads, I started rewrite. >> >> This is just for showing "I started" (not just chating or sleeping ;) >> >> All implemtations are not fixed yet. So feel free to do any comments. >> This set is for minimum change set, I think. Some more rich functions >> can be implemented based on this. >> >> All patches are against "mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2009-11-01-10-01" >> >> Patches are organized as >> >> (1) pass oom-killer more information, classification and fix mempolicy >> case. >> (2) counting swap usage >> (3) counting lowmem usage >> (4) fork bomb detector/killer >> (5) check expansion of total_vm >> (6) rewrite __badness(). >> >> passed small tests on x86-64 boxes. >> >> Thanks, >> -Kame >> >> > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Minchan Kim > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/