[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [14]   [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
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > 3% is choosed by you :-/
> >
> No, 3% was chosen in __vm_enough_memory() for LSMs as the comment in the
> oom killer shows:
> /*
> * Root processes get 3% bonus, just like the __vm_enough_memory()
> * implementation used by LSMs.
> */
> and is described in Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt.
> I think in cases of heuristics like this where we obviously want to give
> some bonus to CAP_SYS_ADMIN that there is consistency with other bonuses
> given elsewhere in the kernel.

Keep comparision apple to apple. vm_enough_memory() account _virtual_ memory.
oom-killer try to free _physical_ memory. It's unrelated.

> > Old background is very simple and cleaner.
> >
> The old heuristic divided the arbitrary badness score by 4 with
> CAP_SYS_RESOURCE. The new heuristic doesn't consider it.
> How is that more clean?
> > CAP_SYS_RESOURCE mean the process has a privilege of using more resource.
> > then, oom-killer gave it additonal bonus.
> >
> As a side-effect of being given more resources to allocate, those
> applications are relatively unbounded in terms of memory consumption to
> other tasks. Thus, it's possible that these applications are using a
> massive amount of memory (say, 75%) and now with the proposed change a
> task using 25% of memory would be killed instead. This increases the
> liklihood that the CAP_SYS_RESOURCE thread will have to be killed
> eventually, anyway, and the goal is to kill as few tasks as possible to
> free sufficient amount of memory.

You are talking two difference at once. 3% vs 4x and CAP_SYS_RESOURCE and

Please keep comparing apple to apple.

> Since threads having CAP_SYS_RESOURCE have full control over their
> oom_score_adj, they can take the additional precautions to protect
> themselves if necessary. It doesn't need to be a part of the heuristic to
> bias these tasks which will lead to the undesired result described above
> by default rather than intentionally from userspace.
> > CAP_SYS_RAWIO mean the process has a direct hardware access privilege
> > (eg, RDB). and then, killing it might makes system crash.
> >
> Then you would want to explicitly filter these tasks from oom kill just as
> OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN works rather than giving them a memory quantity bonus.

No. Why does userland recover your mistake?

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-15 02:27    [W:0.096 / U:1.952 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site