On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote: > > That's certainly idealistic, but cannot be done in an inexpensive way that > > would scale with the large systems that clients of cpusets typically use. > > If we kill only the tasks for which cpuset_mems_allowed_intersects() is true > on the first pass and even then if we do not get out of oom, we could go over > again with this expensive check. The oom killer has no memory of previous kills, so it's not possible to determine if there've been a series of recent needless ones. Subsequent oom conditions should still check for intersection and, since it's only a heuristic, a large memory-hogging task will eventually be killed if there are no tasks remaining with such an intersection. I don't know how you're planning on mapping large memory allocations on nodes of interest back to specific tasks, however. Do you have a proposal? > Using this scheme, could kill more no of > tasks than required, if a task with lots of memory has moved to a different > cpuset. That's rare, since cpusets are used for NUMA optimizations and a set of cpus has a static affinity to certain memory. It could happen if a cpuset's set of allowable nodes is made to be smaller, but that seems like it would trigger the oom in the first place and would encourage killing tasks with an intersection. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
