Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller

[Nikanth Karthikesan]

On Thursday 22 January 2009 11:09:45 Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@xxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> > To use oom_adj effectively one should continuously monitor oom_score of
> > all the processes, which is a complex moving target and keep on adjusting
> > the oom_adj of many tasks which still cannot guarantee the order. This
> > controller is deterministic and hence easier to use.
>
> Why not add an option to make oom_adj ensure strict ordering instead?

This could be done in 2 ways.
1. Make oom_adj itself strict.(based on some other parameter?)
- Adds to confusion whether the current oom_adj is a strict value or the usual 
suggestion. 
- It would disable the oom_adj suggestion which could have been used till now. 
- It is a public interface, and changing that might break some one's script.

2. Add addtional parameter, say  /proc/<pid>/oom_order
- Not easy to use.
- Say I had assigned the oom.victim to a task and it had forked a lot. Now to 
change the value for all the tasks it is easier with cgroups.
- Some optimization that Kame specified earlier would be harder to achieve.

Basically oom-controller implements option 2, using cgroups which can be 
thought of as a modern interface for proc. Also it could be used along with 
other cgroup controllers like the group scheduler. Say you have 2 groups of 
tasks, clubed as entertainment and science, you could use the group scheduler 
to give more CPU bandwidth to science and instruct oom-controller to kill 
entertainment tasks in case of OOM situation.

Thanks
Nikanth

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/