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

[Arve Hjønnevåg]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>

Both options would work for us, but option 1 require no change to our
user space code. I agree that some operations are easier with a
cgroups approach, but since we don't perform these operations it would
be nice to not require cgroups to control the oom killer.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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/