lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] oom-kill: add lowmem usage aware oom kill handling
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

> okay...I guess the cause of the problem Vedran met came from
> this calculation.
> ==
> 109 /*
> 110 * Processes which fork a lot of child processes are likely
> 111 * a good choice. We add half the vmsize of the children if they
> 112 * have an own mm. This prevents forking servers to flood the
> 113 * machine with an endless amount of children. In case a single
> 114 * child is eating the vast majority of memory, adding only half
> 115 * to the parents will make the child our kill candidate of
> choice.
> 116 */
> 117 list_for_each_entry(child, &p->children, sibling) {
> 118 task_lock(child);
> 119 if (child->mm != mm && child->mm)
> 120 points += child->mm->total_vm/2 + 1;
> 121 task_unlock(child);
> 122 }
> 123
> ==
> This makes task launcher(the fist child of some daemon.) first victim.

That "victim", p, is passed to oom_kill_process() which does this:

/* Try to kill a child first */
list_for_each_entry(c, &p->children, sibling) {
if (c->mm == p->mm)
continue;
if (!oom_kill_task(c))
return 0;
}
return oom_kill_task(p);

which prevents your example of the task launcher from getting killed
unless it itself is using such an egregious amount of memory that its VM
size has caused the heuristic to select the daemon in the first place.
We only look at a single level of children, and attempt to kill one of
those children not sharing memory with the selected task first, so your
example is exaggerated for dramatic value.

The oom killer has been doing this for years and I haven't noticed a huge
surge in complaints about it killing X specifically because of that code
in oom_kill_process().


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-29 22:09    [W:0.046 / U:8.044 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site