On Tue 10-04-18 16:04:40, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue 10-04-18 14:39:35, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> > OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN means "hide the process from the OOM killer 
> >> > completely".
> >> > So what exactly do you want to achieve here? Because from the above it
> >> > sounds like opposite things. /me confused...
> >> >
> >> Steve's patch intend to have the process be OOM's victim when it
> >> over-allocating pages for ring buffer. I amend a patch over to protect
> >> process with OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN from doing so. Because it will make
> >> such process to be selected by current OOM's way of
> >> selecting.(consider OOM_FLAG_ORIGIN first before the adj)
> >
> > I just wouldn't really care unless there is an existing and reasonable
> > usecase for an application which updates the ring buffer size _and_ it
> > is OOM disabled at the same time.
> There is indeed such kind of test case on my android system, which is
> known as CTS and Monkey etc.

Does the test simulate a real workload? I mean we have two things here

oom disabled task and an updater of the ftrace ring buffer to a
potentially large size. The second can be completely isolated to a
different context, no? So why do they run in the single user process

> Furthermore, I think we should make the
> patch to be as safest as possible. Why do we leave a potential risk
> here? There is no side effect for my patch.

I do not have the full context. Could you point me to your patch?
Michal Hocko

Reply via email to