On Tue 16-02-16 16:35:39, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 05:37:05PM +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote: > > > Currently tasksize in lowmem_scan() only calculate rss, and not include swap. > > > But usually smart phones enable zram, so swap space actually use ram. > > > > Yes, but does that matter for this type of calculation? I need an ack > > from the android team before I could ever take such a core change to > > this code... > > > > The calculation proposed in this patch is the same as the generic oom > killer, it's an estimate of the amount of memory that will be freed if it > is killed and can exit. This is better than simply get_mm_rss(). > > However, I think we seriously need to re-consider the implementation of > the lowmem killer entirely. It currently abuses the use of TIF_MEMDIE, > which should ideally only be set for one thread on the system since it > allows unbounded access to global memory reserves. > > It also abuses the user-visible /proc/self/oom_score_adj tunable: this > tunable is used by the generic oom killer to bias or discount a proportion > of memory from a process's usage. This is the only supported semantic of > the tunable. The lowmem killer uses it as a strict prioritization, so any > process with oom_score_adj higher than another process is preferred for > kill, REGARDLESS of memory usage. This leads to priority inversion, the > user is unable to always define the same process to be killed by the > generic oom killer and the lowmem killer. This is what happens when a > tunable with a very clear and defined purpose is used for other reasons. > > I'd seriously consider not accepting any additional hacks on top of this > code until the implementation is rewritten. Fully agreed! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>