Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754819Ab0KOKOd (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Nov 2010 05:14:33 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.35]:7480 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754237Ab0KOKOc (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Nov 2010 05:14:32 -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=fOlj2LeKajFzt/ZpdR/pZd/hkkmcKgeoHKxmj3mLB/kW9GJhPLM7DxrGIFwAdw/32R qVMaNofU59dips0ZkwdQ== Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 02:14:24 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: "Figo.zhang" cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , "Figo.zhang" , lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert oom rewrite series In-Reply-To: <4CE0A87E.1030304@leadcoretech.com> Message-ID: References: <1289402093.10699.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1289402666.10699.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20101114141913.E019.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <4CE0A87E.1030304@leadcoretech.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: 3059 Lines: 69 On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Figo.zhang wrote: > i am doubt that a new rewrite but the athor canot provide some evidence and > experiment result, why did you do that? what is the prominent change for your > new algorithm? > > as KOSAKI Motohiro said, "you removed CAP_SYS_RESOURCE condition with ZERO > explanation". > > David just said that pls use userspace tunable for protection by > oom_score_adj. but may i ask question: > > 1. what is your innovation for your new algorithm, the old one have the same > way for user tunable oom_adj. > The goal was to make the oom killer heuristic as predictable as possible and to kill the most memory-hogging task to avoid having to recall it and needlessly kill several tasks. The goal behind oom_score_adj vs. oom_adj was for several reasons, as pointed out before: - give it a unit (proportion of available memory), oom_adj had no unit, - allow it to work on a linear scale for more control over prioritization, oom_adj had an exponential scale, - give it a much higher resolution so it can be fine-tuned, it works with a granularity of 0.1% of memory (~128M on a 128G machine), and - allow it to describe the oom killing priority of a task regardless of its cpuset attachment, mempolicy, or memcg, or when their respective limits change. > 2. if server like db-server/financial-server have huge import processes (such > as root/hardware access processes)want to be protection, you let the > administrator to find out which processes should be protection. you > will let the financial-server administrator huge crazy!! and lose so many > money!! ^~^ > You have full control over disabling a task from being considered with oom_score_adj just like you did with oom_adj. Since oom_adj is deprecated for two years, you can even use the old interface until then. > 3. i see your email in LKML, you just said > "I have repeatedly said that the oom killer no longer kills KDE when run on my > desktop in the presence of a memory hogging task that was written specifically > to oom the machine." > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/48998 > > so you just test your new oom_killer algorithm on your desktop with KDE, so > have you provide the detail how you do the test? is it do the > experiment again for anyone and got the same result as your comment ? > Xorg tends to be killed less because of the change to the heuristic's baseline, which is now based on rss and swap instead of total_vm. This is seperate from the issues you list above, but is a benefit to the oom killer that desktop users especially will notice. I, personally, am interested more in the server market and that's why I looked for a more robust userspace tunable that would still be applicable when things like cpusets have a node added or removed. -- 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/