On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:55 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri 29-06-18 16:40:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 29/06/2018 16:30, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I am not familiar wtih kvm to judge but if we are going to account this > > > memory we will probably want to let oom_badness know how much memory > > > to account to a specific process. Is this something that we can do? > > > We will probably need a new MM_KERNEL rss_stat stat for that purpose. > > > > > > Just to make it clear. I am not opposing to this patch but considering > > > that shadow page tables might consume a lot of memory it would be good > > > to know who is responsible for it from the OOM perspective. Something to > > > solve on top of this. > > > > The amount of memory is generally proportional to the size of the > > virtual machine memory, which is reflected directly into RSS. Because > > KVM processes are usually huge, and will probably dwarf everything else > > in the system (except firefox and chromium of course :)), the general > > order of magnitude of the oom_badness should be okay. > > I think we will need MM_KERNEL longterm anyway. As I've said this is not > a must for this patch to go. But it is better to have a fair comparision > and kill larger processes if at all possible. It seems this should be > the case here. > I will look more into MM_KERNEL counter. I still have couple more kmem allocations in kvm (like dirty bitmap) which I want to be accounted. I will bundle them together. thanks, Shakeel
