Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932250Ab0KNV36 (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:29:58 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.35]:14823 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756969Ab0KNV34 (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:29:56 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=uhkgRbt5P9CIsQbBJRHplS9nRgK7qUOy6SMCBEG+ruOOyFv04ypDO6nIFdk/RdAQoC XwiGdqCGYF0lLl1ZmpwA== Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:29:44 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: KOSAKI Motohiro cc: "Figo.zhang" , lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]mm/oom-kill: direct hardware access processes should get bonus In-Reply-To: <20101112104140.DFFF.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <1289305468.10699.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20101112104140.DFFF.A69D9226@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: 2702 Lines: 64 On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > So the question that needs to be answered is: why do these threads deserve > > to use 3% more memory (not >4%) than others without getting killed? If > > there was some evidence that these threads have a certain quantity of > > memory they require as a fundamental attribute of CAP_SYS_RAWIO, then I > > have no objection, but that's going to be expressed in a memory quantity > > not a percentage as you have here. > > 3% is choosed by you :-/ > No, 3% was chosen in __vm_enough_memory() for LSMs as the comment in the oom killer shows: /* * Root processes get 3% bonus, just like the __vm_enough_memory() * implementation used by LSMs. */ and is described in Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt. I think in cases of heuristics like this where we obviously want to give some bonus to CAP_SYS_ADMIN that there is consistency with other bonuses given elsewhere in the kernel. > Old background is very simple and cleaner. > The old heuristic divided the arbitrary badness score by 4 with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE. The new heuristic doesn't consider it. How is that more clean? > CAP_SYS_RESOURCE mean the process has a privilege of using more resource. > then, oom-killer gave it additonal bonus. > As a side-effect of being given more resources to allocate, those applications are relatively unbounded in terms of memory consumption to other tasks. Thus, it's possible that these applications are using a massive amount of memory (say, 75%) and now with the proposed change a task using 25% of memory would be killed instead. This increases the liklihood that the CAP_SYS_RESOURCE thread will have to be killed eventually, anyway, and the goal is to kill as few tasks as possible to free sufficient amount of memory. Since threads having CAP_SYS_RESOURCE have full control over their oom_score_adj, they can take the additional precautions to protect themselves if necessary. It doesn't need to be a part of the heuristic to bias these tasks which will lead to the undesired result described above by default rather than intentionally from userspace. > CAP_SYS_RAWIO mean the process has a direct hardware access privilege > (eg X.org, RDB). and then, killing it might makes system crash. > Then you would want to explicitly filter these tasks from oom kill just as OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN works rather than giving them a memory quantity bonus. -- 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/