lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller
Date
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 16:23:00 David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote:
> > > As previously stated, I think the heuristic to penalize tasks for not
> > > having an intersection with the set of allowable nodes of the oom
> > > triggering task could be made slightly more severe. That's irrelevant
> > > to your patch, though.
> >
> > But the heuristic makes it non-deterministic, unlike memcg case. And this
> > mandates special handling for cpuset constrained OOM conditions in this
> > patch.
>
> Dividing a badness score by 8 if a task's set of allowable nodes do not
> insect with the oom triggering task's set does not make an otherwise
> deterministic algorithm non-deterministic.
>
> I don't understand what you're arguing for here. Are you suggesting that
> we should not prefer tasks that intersect the set of allowable nodes?
> That makes no sense if the goal is to allow for future memory freeing.
>

No. Actually I am just wondering, will it be possible to check whether a
particular task has memory allocated or mmaped from this node to avoid killing
an innocent task. I compared with memcg, to say that memcg never kills a task
not related to the memcg constrained oom. Sorry if I was unclear, earlier. If
we do this, oom-controller will not require special handling for cpuset
constrained ooms.

Thanks
Nikanth


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-27 12:13    [W:0.113 / U:0.928 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site