lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2]mm/oom-kill: direct hardware access processes should get bonus
    From
    Date
    On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:16 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
    > On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Figo.zhang wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > the victim should not directly access hardware devices like Xorg server,
    > > because the hardware could be left in an unpredictable state, although
    > > user-application can set /proc/pid/oom_score_adj to protect it. so i think
    > > those processes should get 3% bonus for protection.
    > >
    >
    > The logic here is wrong: if killing these tasks can leave hardware in an
    > unpredictable state (and that state is presumably harmful), then they
    > should be completely immune from oom killing since you're still leaving
    > them exposed here to be killed.

    we let the processes with hardware access get bonus for protection. the
    goal is not select them to be killed as possible.


    >
    > So the question that needs to be answered is: why do these threads deserve
    > to use 3% more memory (not >4%) than others without getting killed? If
    > there was some evidence that these threads have a certain quantity of
    > memory they require as a fundamental attribute of CAP_SYS_RAWIO, then I
    > have no objection, but that's going to be expressed in a memory quantity
    > not a percentage as you have here.
    >
    > The CAP_SYS_ADMIN heuristic has a background: it is used in the oom killer
    > because we have used the same 3% in __vm_enough_memory() for a long time
    > and we want consistency amongst the heuristics. Adding additional bonuses
    > with arbitrary values like 3% of memory for things like CAP_SYS_RAWIO
    > makes the heuristic less predictable and moves us back toward the old
    > heuristic which was almost entirely arbitrary.


    yes, i think it is be better those processes which be protection maybe
    divided the badness score by 4, like old heuristic.






    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-10 15:51    [W:0.033 / U:30.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site