Re: [RFC][PATCH] oom_kill: avoid depends on total_vm and use realRSS/swap value for oom_score (Re: Memory overcommit

From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Date: Tue Oct 27 2009 - 04:35:46 EST


On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:14:41 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:56:28 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:45:26 +0900
> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > /*
> > > * After this unlock we can no longer dereference local variable `mm'
> > > @@ -92,8 +93,13 @@ unsigned long badness(struct task_struct
> > > */
> > > list_for_each_entry(child, &p->children, sibling) {
> > > task_lock(child);
> > > - if (child->mm != mm && child->mm)
> > > - points += child->mm->total_vm/2 + 1;
> > > + if (child->mm != mm && child->mm) {
> > > + unsigned long cpoint;
> > > + /* At considering child, we don't count swap */
> > > + cpoint = get_mm_counter(child->mm, anon_rss) +
> > > + get_mm_counter(child->mm, file_rss);
> > > + points += cpoint/2 + 1;
> > > + }
> > > task_unlock(child);
> >
> > BTW, I'd like to get rid of this code.
> >
> > Can't we use other techniques for detecting fork-bomb ?
> >
> > This check can't catch following type, anyway.
> >
> > fork()
> > -> fork()
> > -> fork()
> > -> fork()
> > ....
> >
> > but I have no good idea.
> > What is the difference with task-launcher and fork bomb()...
> >
>
> I think it's good as-is.
> Kernel is hard to know it by effiecient method.
> It depends on applications. so Doesnt's task-launcher
> like gnome-session have to control his oom_score?
>
> Welcome to any ideas if kernel can do it well.
>
Hmmm, check system-wide fork/sec and fork-depth ? Maybe not difficult to calculate..

Regards,
-Kame

--
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/