From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
mel@csn.ul.ie, npiggin@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] copy over oom_adj value at fork time
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:21:11 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090722233347.776E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6599ad830907211303m25141938kcb75065a74a40ee2@mail.gmail.com>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:00 PM, David Rientjes<rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Paul Menage wrote:
> >
> >> Agreed, but the same livelock can be fixed in ways that don't break
> >> the API. (E.g. check for the victim being OOM_DISABLED in
> >> select_bad_process() when we find a new "worst" candidate).
> >>
> >
> > And allow /proc/pid-of-child/oom_score to represent a possible candidate
> > (and, additionally, a hint at the oom killing priority) when it really
> > isn't?
Oops, I really don't like /proc/pid-of-child/oom_score. it is very strange.
>
> It's the API that's existed for years with no complaints, AFAICS.
I think thead and vfork() should be separeted on this discussion.
I agree vfork() regression should be fixed. but I don't think anyone
hope per-thread oom score.
Of cource, if simple reverting is best way, I don't oppose this.... ;-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-23 23:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200906020557.n525v6KO004302@imap1.linux-foundation.org>
2009-07-15 0:52 ` + oom-move-oom_adj-value-from-task_struct-to-mm_struct.patch added to -mm tree Paul Menage
2009-07-15 1:05 ` [PATCH] copy over oom_adj value at fork time Rik van Riel
2009-07-15 1:15 ` Paul Menage
2009-07-15 2:01 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-15 2:12 ` [PATCH -mm] copy over oom_adj value at fork time (v2) Rik van Riel
2009-07-15 3:42 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-15 3:48 ` [PATCH] copy over oom_adj value at fork time David Rientjes
2009-07-16 23:29 ` Paul Menage
2009-07-17 9:34 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-17 20:03 ` Paul Menage
2009-07-17 23:12 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-20 21:52 ` Paul Menage
2009-07-21 3:40 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-21 7:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-21 16:06 ` Paul Menage
2009-07-21 19:54 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-21 19:57 ` Paul Menage
2009-07-21 20:00 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-21 20:03 ` Paul Menage
2009-07-23 23:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2009-07-23 23:29 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-24 1:10 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-24 9:27 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-28 6:09 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-28 6:14 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-15 1:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090722233347.776E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®