> > Such that you can look at your test case or workload and see that > > it is really improved? > > > > I'm glad you asked that because some recent conversation has been > slightly confusing to me about how this affects the desktop; this rewrite > significantly improves the oom killer's response for desktop users. The > core ideas were developed in the thread from this mailing list back in > February called "Improving OOM killer" at > http://marc.info/?t=126506191200004&r=4&w=2 -- users constantly report > that vital system tasks such as kdeinit are killed whenever a memory > hogging task is forked either intentionally or unintentionally. I argued > for a while that KDE should be taking proper precautions by adjusting its > own oom_adj score and that of its forked children as it's an inherited > value, but I was eventually convinced that an overall improvement to the > heuristic must be made to kill a task that was known to free a large > amount of memory that is resident in RAM and that we have a consistent way > of defining oom priorities when a task is run uncontained and when it is a > member of a memcg or cpuset (or even mempolicy now), even in the case when > it's contained out from under the task's knowledge. When faced with > memory pressure from an out of control or memory hogging task on the > desktop, the oom killer now kills it instead of a vital task such as an X > server (and oracle, webserver, etc on server platforms) because of the use > of the task's rss instead of total_vm statistic. The above story teach us oom-killer need some improvement. but it haven't prove your patches are correct solution. that's why you got to ask testing way. Nobody have objection to fix KDE OOM issue. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>