lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [patch -mm v2] mm: introduce oom_adj_child
Date
Hi

Sorry for queue jumping. I have one question.


> > > - /proc/pid/oom_score is inconsistent when the thread that set the
> > > effective per-mm oom_adj exits and it is now obsolete since you have
> > > no way to determine what the next effective oom_adj value shall be.
> > >
> > plz re-caluculate it. it's not a big job if done in lazy way.
> >
>
> You can't recalculate it if all the remaining threads have a different
> oom_adj value than the effective oom_adj value from the thread that is now
> exited. There is no assumption that, for instance, the most negative
> oom_adj value shall then be used. Imagine the effective oom_adj value
> being +15 and a thread sharing the same memory has an oom_adj value of
> -16. Under no reasonable circumstance should the oom preference of the
> entire thread then change to -16 just because its the side-effect of a
> thread exiting.

Why do we need recaluculate AT thread exiting time?
it is only used when oom_score is readed or actual OOM happend.
both those are slow-path.


>
> That's the _entire_ reason why we need consistency in oom_adj values so
> that userspace is aware of how the oom killer really works and chooses
> tasks. I understand that it differs from the previously allowed behavior,
> but those userspace applications need to be fixed if, for no other reason,
> they are now consistent with how the oom killer kills tasks. I think
> that's a very worthwhile goal and the cost of moving to a new interface
> such as /proc/pid/oom_adj_child to have the same inheritance property that
> was available in the past is justified.





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-03 14:35    [W:0.099 / U:2.820 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site