Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:09:13 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>,
       KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with
 nodemask v4.2
Message-Id: <20091215140913.e28f7674.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0912142054520.436@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <20091110162121.361B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<20091111112404.0026e601.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<20091111134514.4edd3011.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<20091111142811.eb16f062.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.0911102155580.2924@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
	<20091111152004.3d585cee.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.0911102224440.6652@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
	<20091111153414.3c263842.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.0911171609370.12532@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
	<20091118095824.076c211f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.0911171725050.13760@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
	<20091214171632.0b34d833.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<20091215103202.eacfd64e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.0912142025090.29243@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
	<20091215134327.6c46b586.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.0912142054520.436@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2048
Lines: 43

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:57:53 -0800 (PST)
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:

> 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.

What I can't undestand is the technique to know whether a (unknown) process is
leaking memory or not by checking vm_size.
And, why don't you use overcommit_memory when you can depends on vm_size ?

Thanks,
-Kame


--
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/