On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:34 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011, CAI Qian wrote:
>
>> Sure, I saw there were some discussion going on between you and David
>> about your patches. Does it make more sense for me to test those after
>> you have settled down technical arguments?
>>
>
> Something like the following (untested) patch should fix the issue by
> simply increasing the range of a task's badness from 0-1000 to 0-10000.
>
> There are other things to fix like the tasklist dump output and
> documentation, but this shows how easy it is to increase the resolution of
> the scoring. Â(This patch also includes a change to only give root
It does make sense.
I think raising resolution should be a easy way to fix the problem.
> processes a 1% bonus for every 30% of memory they use as proposed
> earlier.)
I didn't follow earlier your suggestion.
But it's not formal patch so I expect if you send formal patch to
merge, you would write down the rationale.
>
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> Â Â Â Â */
> Â Â Â Âif (p->flags & PF_OOM_ORIGIN) {
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âtask_unlock(p);
> - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return 1000;
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return 10000;
> Â Â Â Â}
>
> Â Â Â Â/*
> @@ -177,32 +177,32 @@ unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> Â Â Â Âpoints = get_mm_rss(p->mm) + p->mm->nr_ptes;
> Â Â Â Âpoints += get_mm_counter(p->mm, MM_SWAPENTS);
>
> - Â Â Â points *= 1000;
> + Â Â Â points *= 10000;
> Â Â Â Âpoints /= totalpages;
> Â Â Â Âtask_unlock(p);
>
> Â Â Â Â/*
> - Â Â Â Â* Root processes get 3% bonus, just like the __vm_enough_memory()
> - Â Â Â Â* implementation used by LSMs.
> + Â Â Â Â* Root processes get 1% bonus per 30% memory used for a total of 3%
> + Â Â Â Â* possible just like LSMs.
> Â Â Â Â */
> Â Â Â Âif (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â points -= 30;
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â points -= 100 * (points / 3000);
>
> Â Â Â Â/*
> Â Â Â Â * /proc/pid/oom_score_adj ranges from -1000 to +1000 such that it may
> Â Â Â Â * either completely disable oom killing or always prefer a certain
> Â Â Â Â * task.
> Â Â Â Â */
> - Â Â Â points += p->signal->oom_score_adj;
> + Â Â Â points += p->signal->oom_score_adj * 10;
>
> Â Â Â Â/*
> Â Â Â Â * Never return 0 for an eligible task that may be killed since it's
> - Â Â Â Â* possible that no single user task uses more than 0.1% of memory and
> + Â Â Â Â* possible that no single user task uses more than 0.01% of memory and
> Â Â Â Â * no single admin tasks uses more than 3.0%.
> Â Â Â Â */
> Â Â Â Âif (points <= 0)
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âreturn 1;
> - Â Â Â return (points < 1000) ? points : 1000;
> + Â Â Â return (points < 10000) ? points : 10000;
> Â}
>
> Â/*
> @@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned int *ppoints,
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â */
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âif (p == current) {
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âchosen = p;
> - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *ppoints = 1000;
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *ppoints = 10000;
Scattering constant value isn't good.
You are proving it now.
I think you did it since this is not a formal patch.
I expect you will define new value (ex, OOM_INTERNAL_MAX_SCORE or whatever)
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href