On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 13:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

quoted

Summarizing I think now .....
  - rename mm->oom_adj as mm->effective_oom_adj
  - re-add per-thread oom_adj
  - update mm->effective_oom_adj based on per-thread oom_adj
  - if necessary, plz add read-only /proc/pid/effective_oom_adj file.
    or show 2 values in /proc/pid/oom_adj
  - rewrite documentation about oom_score.
   " it's calclulated from  _process's_ memory usage and oom_adj of
    all threads which shares a memor  context".
   This behavior is not changed from old implemtation, anyway.
 - If necessary, rewrite oom_kill itself to scan only thread group
   leader. It's a way to go regardless of  vfork problem.

Ok, so you've abandoned the signal_struct proposal and now want to add it 

per-signal is also ok, just I didn't write.

back to task_struct with an effective member in mm_struct by changing the 
documentation.  Hmm.

This solves the livelock problem by adding additional tunables, but 
doesn't match how the documentation describes the use case for 
/proc/pid/oom_adj.  Your argument is that the behavior of that value can't 
change: that it must be per-thread.  And that allowance leads to one of 
two inconsistent scenarios:

 - /proc/pid/oom_score is inconsistent when tuning /proc/pid/oom_adj if it
   relies on the per-thread oom_adj; it now really represents nothing but
   an incorrect value if other threads share that memory and misleads the
   user on how the oom killer chooses victims, or

What's why I said to show effective_oom_adj if necessary..

 - /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.

Determining the next effective per-mm oom_adj isn't possible when the only 
threads sharing the mm remaining have different per-thread oom_adj values.  
That's a horribly inconsistent state to be getting into because it allows 
oom_score to change when a thread exits, which is completely unknown to 
userspace, OR is allows the effective per-mm oom_adj to be different from 
all threads sharing the same memory (and, thus, /proc/pid/oom_score not 
being representative of any thread's /proc/pid/oom_adj).

A _sane_ user will just set oom_adj to thread-group-leader.
Do you think users are too fool to set per-thread oom_adj independently ?
No problems in real world.

quoted

I think documentation is wrong. It should say "you should think of
multi-thread effect to oom_adj/oom_score".

It's more likely than not that applications were probably written to the 
way the documentation described the two files: that is, adjust 
/proc/pid/oom_score by tuning /proc/pid/oom_adj instead of relying on an 
undocumented implementation detail concerning the tuning of oom_adj for a 
vfork'd child prior to exec().  The user is probably unaware of the oom 
killer's implementation and simply interprets a higher oom_score as a more 
likely candidate for oom kill.  My patches preserve that in all scenarios 
without altering the documentation or adding additional files that would 
be required to leave the oom_adj value itself in an inconsistent state as 
you propose.

No.  My understanding is this.

 - oom_adj is designed considering vfork(), of course. then. per-thread.
 - oom_score has been incorrect in multi-threaded system. The user will not
   be affected.
 - you fixed livelock but breaks the feature.


Thanks,
-Kame
  




--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>