lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Improving OOM killer
Date
> =====
> --- linux-2.6.31/mm/oom_kill.c.sav 2010-02-01 22:00:41.614838540 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.31/mm/oom_kill.c 2010-02-01 22:01:08.773757932 +0100
> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ unsigned long badness(struct task_struct
> /*
> * The memory size of the process is the basis for the badness.
> */
> - points = mm->total_vm;
> + points = get_mm_rss(mm);
>
> /*
> * After this unlock we can no longer dereference local variable `mm'
> @@ -83,21 +83,6 @@ unsigned long badness(struct task_struct
> return ULONG_MAX;
>
> /*
> - * Processes which fork a lot of child processes are likely
> - * a good choice. We add half the vmsize of the children if they
> - * have an own mm. This prevents forking servers to flood the
> - * machine with an endless amount of children. In case a single
> - * child is eating the vast majority of memory, adding only half
> - * to the parents will make the child our kill candidate of choice.
> - */
> - list_for_each_entry(child, &p->children, sibling) {
> - task_lock(child);
> - if (child->mm != mm && child->mm)
> - points += child->mm->total_vm/2 + 1;
> - task_unlock(child);
> - }
> -
> - /*
> * CPU time is in tens of seconds and run time is in thousands
> * of seconds. There is no particular reason for this other than
> * that it turned out to work very well in practice.
> =====
>
> In other words, use VmRSS for measuring memory usage instead of VmSize, and
> remove child accumulating.
>
> I hope the above is good enough reason for the first change. VmSize includes
> things like read-only mappings, memory mappings that is actually unused,
> mappings backed by a file, mappings from video drivers, and so on. VmRSS is
> actual real memory used, which is what mostly matters here. While it may not
> be perfect, it is certainly an improvement.
>
> The second change should be done on the basis that it does more harm than
> good. In this specific case, it does not help to identify the source of the
> problem, and it incorrectly identifies kdeinit as the problem solely on the
> basis that it spawned many other processes. I think it's already quite hinted
> that this is a problem by the fact that you had to add a special protection
> for init - any session manager, process launcher or even xterm used for
> launching apps is yet another init.
>
> I also have problems finding a case where the child accounting would actually
> help. I mean, in practice, I can certainly come up with something in theory,
> and this looks to me like a solution to a very synthesized problem. In which
> realistic case will one process launch a limited number of children, where
> all of them will consume memory, but just killing the children one by one
> won't avoid the problem reasonably? This is unlikely to avoid a forkbomb, as
> in that case the number of children will be the problem. It is not necessary
> for just one children misbehaving and being restarted, nor will it work
> there. So what is that supposed to fix, and is it more likely than the case
> of a process launching several unrelated children?
>
> If the children accounting is supposed to handle cases like forked children
> of Apache, then I suggest it is adjusted only to count children that have
> been forked from the parent but there has been no exec(). I'm afraid I don't
> know how to detect that.
>
>
> When running a kernel with these changes applied, I can safely do the
> above-described case of running parallel doc generation in KDE. No clearly
> innocent process is selected for killing, the first choice is always an
> offender.
>
> Moreover, the remedy is almost instant, there is only a fraction of second of
> when the machine is overloaded by the I/O of swapping pages in and out (I do
> not use swap, but there is a large amount of memory used by read-only
> mappings of binaries, libraries or various other files that is in the
> original case rendering the machine unresponsive - I assume this is because
> the kernel tries to kill an innocent process, but the offenders immediatelly
> consume anything that is freed, requiring even memory used by code that is to
> be executed to be swapped in from files again).
>
> I consider the patches to be definite improvements, so if they are ok, I will
> format them as necessary. Now, what is the catch?

Personally, I think your use case represent to typical desktop and Linux
have to works fine on typical desktop use-case. /proc/pid/oom_adj never fit
desktop use-case. In past discussion, I'v agreed with much people. but I haven't
reach to agree with David Rientjes about this topic.

If you want to merge this patch, you need persuade him. I can't help you. sorry.






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-03 08:53    [W:0.148 / U:1.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site