On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 22 January 2009 11:09:45 Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@xxxxxxx> > wrote: >> > To use oom_adj effectively one should continuously monitor oom_score of >> > all the processes, which is a complex moving target and keep on adjusting >> > the oom_adj of many tasks which still cannot guarantee the order. This >> > controller is deterministic and hence easier to use. >> >> Why not add an option to make oom_adj ensure strict ordering instead? > > This could be done in 2 ways. > 1. Make oom_adj itself strict.(based on some other parameter?) > - Adds to confusion whether the current oom_adj is a strict value or the usual > suggestion. > - It would disable the oom_adj suggestion which could have been used till now. > - It is a public interface, and changing that might break some one's script. > > 2. Add addtional parameter, say /proc/<pid>/oom_order > - Not easy to use. > - Say I had assigned the oom.victim to a task and it had forked a lot. Now to > change the value for all the tasks it is easier with cgroups. > - Some optimization that Kame specified earlier would be harder to achieve. > Both options would work for us, but option 1 require no change to our user space code. I agree that some operations are easier with a cgroups approach, but since we don't perform these operations it would be nice to not require cgroups to control the oom killer. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers