Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:49:02 +0900 (JST) | Subject | Re: [patch -mm v2] mm: introduce oom_adj_child | From | "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <> |
| |
David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > >> > > Simply, reset_oom_adj_at_new_mm_context or some. >> > > >> > >> > I think it's preferred to keep the name relatively short which is an >> > unfortuante requirement in this case. I also prefer to start the name >> > with "oom_adj" so it appears alongside /proc/pid/oom_adj when listed >> > alphabetically. >> > >> But misleading name is bad. >> > > Can you help think of any names that start with oom_adj_* and are > relatively short? I'd happily ack it. > There have been traditional name "effective" as uid and euid.
then, per thread oom_adj as oom_adj per proc oom_adj as effective_oom_adj
is an natural way as Unix, I think.
>> Why don't you think select_bad_process()-> oom_kill_task() >> implementation is bad ? > > It livelocks if a thread is chosen and passed to oom_kill_task() while > another per-thread oom_adj value is OOM_DISABLE for a thread sharing the > same memory. > I say "why don't modify buggy selection logic?"
Why we have to scan all threads ? As fs/proc/readdir does, you can scan only "process group leader".
per-thread scan itself is buggy because now we have per-process effective-oom-adj.
>> IMHO, it's bad manner to fix an os-implementation problem by adding >> _new_ user >> interface which is hard to understand. >> > > How else do you propose the oom killer use oom_adj values on a per-thread > basis without considering other threads sharing the same memory? As I wrote. per-process(signal struct) or per-thread oom_adj and add mm->effecitve_oom_adj
task scanning isn't necessary to do per-thread scan and you can scan only process-group-leader. What's bad ? If oom_score is problem, plz fix it to show effective_oom_score.
If you can wait until the end of August, plz wait. I'll do some.
Thanks, -Kame
| |