lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] oom_kill: avoid depends on total_vm and use real RSS/swap value for oom_score (Re: Memory overcommit
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:52:43 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:33:08 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:14:41 +0900
> > Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:56:28 +0900
> > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:45:26 +0900
> > > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > > /*
> > > > > * After this unlock we can no longer dereference local variable `mm'
> > > > > @@ -92,8 +93,13 @@ unsigned long badness(struct task_struct
> > > > > */
> > > > > list_for_each_entry(child, &p->children, sibling) {
> > > > > task_lock(child);
> > > > > - if (child->mm != mm && child->mm)
> > > > > - points += child->mm->total_vm/2 + 1;
> > > > > + if (child->mm != mm && child->mm) {
> > > > > + unsigned long cpoint;
> > > > > + /* At considering child, we don't count swap */
> > > > > + cpoint = get_mm_counter(child->mm, anon_rss) +
> > > > > + get_mm_counter(child->mm, file_rss);
> > > > > + points += cpoint/2 + 1;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > task_unlock(child);
> > > >
> > > > BTW, I'd like to get rid of this code.
> > > >
> > > > Can't we use other techniques for detecting fork-bomb ?
> > > >
> > > > This check can't catch following type, anyway.
> > > >
> > > > fork()
> > > > -> fork()
> > > > -> fork()
> > > > -> fork()
> > > > ....
> > > >
> > > > but I have no good idea.
> > > > What is the difference with task-launcher and fork bomb()...
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think it's good as-is.
> > > Kernel is hard to know it by effiecient method.
> > > It depends on applications. so Doesnt's task-launcher
> > > like gnome-session have to control his oom_score?
> > >
> > > Welcome to any ideas if kernel can do it well.
> > >
> > Hmmm, check system-wide fork/sec and fork-depth ? Maybe not difficult to calculate..
>
> Yes. We can do anything to achieve the goal in kernel.
> Maybe check the time or fork-depth counting.
> What I have a concern is how we can do it nicely if it is a serious
> problem in kernel. ;)
>
yes...only the user knows whether user is wrong, finally. Especially in case
of memory leak.

> I think most of program which have many child are victims of OOM killing.
> It make sense to me. There is some cases to not make sense like task-launcher.
> So I think if task-launcher which is very rare and special program can change
> oom_adj by itself, it's good than thing that add new heuristic in kernel.
>
> It's just my opinon. :)
>
I know KDE already adjsut oom_adj for their 3.5 release ;)
Okay, concentrate on avoiding total_vm issue for a while.

Thanks,
-Kame




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-27 10:01    [W:1.239 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site