On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 02:02:59 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Let's try it with a heuristic change first. If you really do not like > > it, we can move to oom_scode_adj. I like the heuristic change little bit > > more because it is at the same place as the root bonus. > > The problem with the bonus is that, as mentioned previously, it doesn't > protect against ANYTHING for the case you're trying to fix. This won't > panic the machine because all killable threads are guaranteed to have a > non-zero badness score, but it's a very valid configuration to have either > > - all eligible threads (system-wide, shared cpuset, shared mempolicy > nodes) are frozen, or > > - all eligible frozen threads use <5% of memory whereas all other > eligible killable threads use 1% of available memory. > > and that means the oom killer will repeatedly select those threads and the > livelock still exists unless you can guarantee that they are successfully > thawed, that thawing them in all situations is safe, and that once thawed > they will make a timely exit. > > Additionally, I don't think biasing against frozen tasks makes sense from > a heusritic standpoint of the oom killer. Why would we want give > non-frozen tasks that are actually getting work done a preference over a > task that is frozen and doing absolutely nothing? It seems like that's > backwards and that we'd actually prefer killing the task doing nothing so > it can free its memory. > I agree with David. Why don't you set oom_score_adj as -1000 for processes which never should die ? You don't freeze processes via user-land using cgroup ? Thanks, -Kame -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>