KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
>
The interesting thing is the use of total_vm and not the RSS which is used
as
the basis by the OOM killer. I need to read/understand the code a bit more.
>>> RSS makes more sense to me as well.
>> Andrea Arcangeli has patches pending which change this
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Andrea Arcangeli has patches pending which change this to the RSS.
> > Specifically:
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=119977937126925
>
> I agreed with you that RSS is better :)
>
>
>
> but..
> on many node numa, per zone rss is more
Hi
> > > The interesting thing is the use of total_vm and not the RSS which is
> > > used as
> > > the basis by the OOM killer. I need to read/understand the code a bit
> > > more.
> >
> > RSS makes more sense to me as well.
>
> Andrea Arcangeli has patches pending which change this to the RSS
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > The interesting thing is the use of total_vm and not the RSS which is used
> > as
> > the basis by the OOM killer. I need to read/understand the code a bit more.
>
> RSS makes more sense to me as well.
>
> To me, it makes no sense to count shared memory
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 09:43 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> 1. grep on the kernel source tells me that shared_vm is incremented only in
>vm_stat_account(), which is a NO-OP if CONFIG_PROC_FS is not defined.
I see, thanks for pointing that out. Is there another way do you think?
Would the penalty
Jeff Davis wrote:
> In oom_kill.c, one of the badness calculations is wildly inaccurate. If
> memory is shared among child processes, that same memory will be counted
> for each child, effectively multiplying the memory penalty by N, where N
> is the number of children.
>
> This makes it almost ce
6 matches
Mail list logo
