Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754330AbZKCUYG (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:24:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753885AbZKCUYF (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:24:05 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:45434 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752996AbZKCUYE (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:24:04 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=tDW+NT3dmv2zqQtP0lEmsRy4hnr4//QUvsG6SfM3+ngg0VNGNmZcvU5C67heYS7lp sJbb7Hk3mNQ+YGzNBDd4A== Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:24:01 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, KOSAKI Motohiro , Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton , minchan.kim@gmail.com, vedran.furac@gmail.com, Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [RFC][-mm][PATCH 3/6] oom-killer: count lowmem rss In-Reply-To: <20091102162617.9d07e05f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20091102162244.9425e49b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091102162617.9d07e05f.kamezawa.hiroyu@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 Content-Length: 1265 Lines: 27 On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > > Count lowmem rss per mm_struct. Lowmem here means... > > for NUMA, pages in a zone < policy_zone. > for HIGHMEM x86, pages in NORMAL zone. > for others, all pages are lowmem. > > Now, lower_zone_protection[] works very well for protecting lowmem but > possiblity of lowmem-oom is not 0 even if under good protection in the kernel. > (As fact, it's can be configured by sysctl. When we keep it high, there > will be tons of not-for-use memory but system will be protected against > rare event of lowmem-oom.) Right, lowmem isn't addressed currently by the oom killer. Adding this constraint will probably make the heuristics much harder to write and understand. It's not always clear that we want to kill a task using lowmem just because another task needs some, for instance. Do you think we'll need a way to defer killing any task is no task is heuristically found to be hogging lowmem? -- 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/