From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757507Ab0BKX5L (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:57:11 -0500 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:60449 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757347Ab0BKX5G (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:57:06 -0500 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:52:59 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Nick Piggin , Andrea Arcangeli , Balbir Singh , Lubos Lunak , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/7 -mm] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset Message-Id: <20100212085259.c9a19c31.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:32:08 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes wrote: > Tasks that do not share the same set of allowed nodes with the task that > triggered the oom should not be considered as candidates for oom kill. > > Tasks in other cpusets with a disjoint set of mems would be unfairly > penalized otherwise because of oom conditions elsewhere; an extreme > example could unfairly kill all other applications on the system if a > single task in a user's cpuset sets itself to OOM_DISABLE and then uses > more memory than allowed. > > Killing tasks outside of current's cpuset rarely would free memory for > current anyway. > > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki