Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756767AbZLOE6A (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:58:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756573AbZLOE57 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:57:59 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:24630 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750950AbZLOE57 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:57:59 -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=ShWQX+JB4PTCzmAAGbSzxtfBHwHaSN85DOscwk6tbkDBiOuG1wa8PTkbIM89udvsB NOKgjhPpX/S3f8LsZOddw== Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:57:53 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki cc: Andrew Morton , Daisuke Nishimura , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with nodemask v4.2 In-Reply-To: <20091215134327.6c46b586.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20091110162121.361B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091110171704.3800f081.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091111112404.0026e601.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091111134514.4edd3011.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091111142811.eb16f062.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091111152004.3d585cee.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091111153414.3c263842.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091118095824.076c211f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091214171632.0b34d833.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20091215103202.eacfd64e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091215134327.6c46b586.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: 1695 Lines: 31 On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > That's not at all what I said. I said using total_vm as a baseline allows > > users to define when a process is to be considered "rogue," that is, using > > more memory than expected. Using rss would be inappropriate since it is > > highly dynamic and depends on the state of the VM at the time of oom, > > which userspace cannot possibly keep updated. > > > > You consistently ignore that point: the power of /proc/pid/oom_adj to > > influence when a process, such as a memory leaker, is to be considered as > > a high priority for an oom kill. It has absolutely nothing to do with > > fake NUMA, cpusets, or memcg. > > > You also ignore that it's not sane to use oom kill for resource control ;) > Please read my email. Did I say anything about resource control AT ALL? I said /proc/pid/oom_adj currently allows userspace to define when a task is "rogue," meaning its consuming much more memory than expected. Those memory leakers should always be the optimal result for the oom killer to kill. Using rss as the baseline would not allow userspace to effectively do the same thing since it's dynamic and depends on the state of the VM at the time of oom which is probably not reflected in the /proc/pid/oom_adj values for all tasks. It has absolutely nothing to do with resource control, so please address this very trivial issue without going off on tangents. Thanks. -- 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/