On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 04:18:47PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> > With a63d83f427fb ("oom: badness heuristic rewrite"), the OOM killer
> > tries to avoid killing privileged tasks by subtracting 3% of overall
> > memory (system or cgroup) from their per-task consumption. But as a
> > result, all root tasks that consume less than 3% of overall memory are
> > considered equal, and so it only takes 33+ privileged tasks pushing
> > the system out of memory for the OOM killer to do something stupid and
> > kill sshd or dhclient. For example, on a 32G machine it can't tell
> > the difference between the 1M agetty and the 10G fork bomb member.
> >
> > The changelog describes this 3% boost as the equivalent to the global
> > overcommit limit being 3% higher for privileged tasks, but this is not
> > the same as discounting 3% of overall memory from _every privileged
> > task individually_ during OOM selection.
> >
> > Revert back to the old priority boost of pretending root tasks are
> > only a quarter of their actual size.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, I think this could potentially be too much of a bonus. On
> your same 32GB machine, if a root process is using 18GB and a user process
> is using 14GB, the user process ends up getting selected while the current
> discount of 3% still selects the root process.
>
> I do like the idea of scaling this bonus depending on points, however. I
> think it would be better if we could scale the discount but also limit it
> to some sane value.
I just reverted to the /= 4 because we had that for a long time and it
seemed to work. I don't really mind either way as long as we get rid
of that -3%. Do you have a suggestion?
--
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>