On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Xishi Qiu wrote: > Does somebody do the work of re-implementation of the lowmem killer entirely > now? Could you give me some details? e.g. when and how? > I don't know of any plans or anybody working on reimplementing it to be correct, I simply don't think we should pile more patches on top of an already broken design. > Here are another two questions. > 1) lmk has several lowmem thresholds, it's "lowmem_minfree[]", and the value is > static definition, so is it reasonable for different memory size(e.g. 2G/3G/4G...) > of smart phones? It looks like it is configurable from userspace and actually defaults to 6MB, 8MB, 16MB, and 64MB in the kernel. Reimplementing the lmk would have to take this design decision into consideration and replace it with something that would not cause existing userspace to break. A sane implementation would be to do what vmpressure does in the kernel, and that is to signal userspace when certain thresholds are met. Userspace could then issue a SIGKILL to processes based on priority (/proc/pid/oom_score_adj is world-readable by default) and the oom killer will grant these processes access to memory reserves immediately if they cannot allocate the memory needed to exit. > 2) There are many adjustable arguments in /proc/sys/vm/, and the default value > maybe not benefit for smart phones, so any suggestions? > I would assume that vm sysctls, like any other sysctls, would be tuned with initscripts depending on the configuration, if necessary. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
