On Mon 05-06-17 17:27:50, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > > > On 05.06.2017 11:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Thu 25-05-17 13:28:30, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: [...] > >>index 04c9143a8625..dd30a045ef5b 100644 > >>--- a/mm/oom_kill.c > >>+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > >>@@ -876,6 +876,11 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message) > >> /* Get a reference to safely compare mm after task_unlock(victim) */ > >> mm = victim->mm; > >> mmgrab(mm); > >>+ > >>+ /* Raise event before sending signal: reaper must see this */ > >>+ count_vm_event(OOM_KILL); > >>+ mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(mm, OOM_KILL); > >>+ > >> /* > >> * We should send SIGKILL before setting TIF_MEMDIE in order to prevent > >> * the OOM victim from depleting the memory reserves from the user > > > >Why don't you count tasks which share mm with the oom victim? > > Yes, this makes sense. But these kills are not logged thus counter > will differs from logged events. Yes they are not but does that matter? Do we want _all_ or only some oom kills being counted. > Also these tasks might live in different cgroups, so counting to mm > owner isn't correct. Well, the situation with mm shared between different memcgs is always hairy. We try to charge mm->owner but I suspect we are not consistent in that. I would have to double check because it's been a long ago since I've investigated that. My point is that once you count OOM kills you should count all the tasks IMHO. -- 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>
