lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Remove OOM killer from try_to_free_pages / all_unreclaimable braindamage
    On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 02:55:50AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 02:20 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > > On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 03:32:50PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
    > > > On Friday, November 05, 2004 12:01 pm, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
    > > > > In my opinion the correct approach is to trigger the OOM killer
    > > > > when kswapd is unable to free pages. Once that is done, the number
    > > > > of tasks inside page reclaim is irrelevant.
    > > >
    > > > That makes sense.
    > >
    > > I don't like it, kswapd may fail balancing because there's a GFP_DMA
    > > allocation that eat the last dma page, but we should not kill tasks if
    > > we fail to balance in kswapd, we should kill tasks only when no fail
    > > path exists (i.e. only during page faults, everything else in the kernel
    > > has a fail path and it should never trigger oom).
    > >
    > > If you move it in kswapd there's no way to prevent oom-killing from a
    > > syscall allocation (I guess even right now it would go wrong in this
    > > sense, but at least right now it's more fixable). I want to move the oom
    > > kill outside the alloc_page paths. The oom killing is all about the page
    > > faults not having a fail path, and in turn the oom killing should be
    > > moved in the page fault code, not in the allocator. Everything else
    > > should keep returning -ENOMEM to the caller.
    > >
    > > So to me moving the oom killer into kswapd looks a regression.
    >
    > My point is not where oom-killer is triggered. My point is the decision
    > criteria of oom-killer, when it is finally invoked, which process to
    > kill. That's kind of independend of your patch. Your patch corrects the
    > context in which oom-killer is called. My concern is that the decision
    > critrion which process should be killed is not sufficient. In my case it
    > kills sshd instead of a process which forks a bunch of child processes.
    > Thats just wrong, because it takes away the chance to log into the
    > machine remotely and fix the problem.

    Hi Thomas,

    Yes your patches are correct and needed independantly of where OOM killer
    is triggered from.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:5.044 / U:0.240 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site