On Tuesday 27 January 2009 16:23:00 David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote: > > > As previously stated, I think the heuristic to penalize tasks for not > > > having an intersection with the set of allowable nodes of the oom > > > triggering task could be made slightly more severe. That's irrelevant > > > to your patch, though. > > > > But the heuristic makes it non-deterministic, unlike memcg case. And this > > mandates special handling for cpuset constrained OOM conditions in this > > patch. > > Dividing a badness score by 8 if a task's set of allowable nodes do not > insect with the oom triggering task's set does not make an otherwise > deterministic algorithm non-deterministic. > > I don't understand what you're arguing for here. Are you suggesting that > we should not prefer tasks that intersect the set of allowable nodes? > That makes no sense if the goal is to allow for future memory freeing. > No. Actually I am just wondering, will it be possible to check whether a particular task has memory allocated or mmaped from this node to avoid killing an innocent task. I compared with memcg, to say that memcg never kills a task not related to the memcg constrained oom. Sorry if I was unclear, earlier. If we do this, oom-controller will not require special handling for cpuset constrained ooms. Thanks Nikanth _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
