Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754754Ab0A2VLk (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:11:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754191Ab0A2VLk (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:11:40 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.44.51]:11739 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753592Ab0A2VLj (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:11:39 -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=GVoB8UZzSk0zqDMsA/XBxEDEyWzFgbJwGSY04qRqGk+6fyM0fIASdE4y1u4vqstHD D9xobiLBEj8FM92cgLE6g== Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:11:35 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki cc: Alan Cox , vedran.furac@gmail.com, Andrew Morton , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , minchan.kim@gmail.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] oom-kill: add lowmem usage aware oom kill handling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20100129162137.79b2a6d4@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> 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: 1088 Lines: 21 On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > If so, all heuristics other than vm_size should be purged, I think. I don't recall anybody disagreeing about removing some of the current heuristics, but there is value to those beyond simply total_vm: we want to penalize tasks that do not share any mems_allowed with the triggering task, for example, otherwise it can lead to needless oom killing. Many people believe we should keep the slight penalty for superuser tasks over regular user tasks, as well. Auditing the badness() function is a worthwhile endeavor and I think you'd be most successful if you tweaked the various penalties (runtime, nice, capabilities, etc) to reflect how much each is valued in terms of VM size, the baseline. I doubt anybody would defend simply dividing by 4 or multiplying by 2 being scientific. -- 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/