Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752454Ab0BPGOd (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:14:33 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:60158 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751599Ab0BPGOc (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:14:32 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:14:27 +1100 From: Nick Piggin To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Andrea Arcangeli , Balbir Singh , Lubos Lunak , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [patch -mm 1/9 v2] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset Message-ID: <20100216061427.GY5723@laptop> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2322 Lines: 64 On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 02:20:01PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > Tasks that do not share the same set of allowed nodes with the task that > triggered the oom should not be considered as candidates for oom kill. > > Tasks in other cpusets with a disjoint set of mems would be unfairly > penalized otherwise because of oom conditions elsewhere; an extreme > example could unfairly kill all other applications on the system if a > single task in a user's cpuset sets itself to OOM_DISABLE and then uses > more memory than allowed. > > Killing tasks outside of current's cpuset rarely would free memory for > current anyway. > > Acked-by: Rik van Riel > Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes Acked-by: Nick Piggin > --- > mm/oom_kill.c | 12 +++--------- > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(zone_scan_lock); > /* #define DEBUG */ > > /* > - * Is all threads of the target process nodes overlap ours? > + * Do all threads of the target process overlap our allowed nodes? > */ > static int has_intersects_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk) > { > @@ -167,14 +167,6 @@ unsigned long badness(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long uptime) > points /= 4; > > /* > - * If p's nodes don't overlap ours, it may still help to kill p > - * because p may have allocated or otherwise mapped memory on > - * this node before. However it will be less likely. > - */ > - if (!has_intersects_mems_allowed(p)) > - points /= 8; > - > - /* > * Adjust the score by oom_adj. > */ > if (oom_adj) { > @@ -266,6 +258,8 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned long *ppoints, > continue; > if (mem && !task_in_mem_cgroup(p, mem)) > continue; > + if (!has_intersects_mems_allowed(p)) > + continue; > > /* > * This task already has access to memory reserves and is -- 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/