Re: [patch -mm v2] mm: introduce oom_adj_child

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

Hi

Sorry for queue jumping. I have one question.


> > >  - /proc/pid/oom_score is inconsistent when the thread that set the
> > >    effective per-mm oom_adj exits and it is now obsolete since you have
> > >    no way to determine what the next effective oom_adj value shall be.
> > > 
> > plz re-caluculate it. it's not a big job if done in lazy way.
> > 
> 
> You can't recalculate it if all the remaining threads have a different 
> oom_adj value than the effective oom_adj value from the thread that is now 
> exited.  There is no assumption that, for instance, the most negative 
> oom_adj value shall then be used.  Imagine the effective oom_adj value 
> being +15 and a thread sharing the same memory has an oom_adj value of 
> -16.  Under no reasonable circumstance should the oom preference of the 
> entire thread then change to -16 just because its the side-effect of a 
> thread exiting.

Why do we need recaluculate AT thread exiting time?
it is only used when oom_score is readed or actual OOM happend.
both those are slow-path.


> 
> That's the _entire_ reason why we need consistency in oom_adj values so 
> that userspace is aware of how the oom killer really works and chooses 
> tasks.  I understand that it differs from the previously allowed behavior, 
> but those userspace applications need to be fixed if, for no other reason, 
> they are now consistent with how the oom killer kills tasks.  I think 
> that's a very worthwhile goal and the cost of moving to a new interface 
> such as /proc/pid/oom_adj_child to have the same inheritance property that 
> was available in the past is justified.



--
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/