Re: [PATCH] mm: add MM_SWAPENTS and page table when calculate tasksize in lowmem_scan()

[Xishi Qiu]

On 2016/2/17 8:35, David Rientjes wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 05:37:05PM +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>> Currently tasksize in lowmem_scan() only calculate rss, and not include swap.
>>> But usually smart phones enable zram, so swap space actually use ram.
>>
>> Yes, but does that matter for this type of calculation?  I need an ack
>> from the android team before I could ever take such a core change to
>> this code...
>>
> 
> The calculation proposed in this patch is the same as the generic oom 
> killer, it's an estimate of the amount of memory that will be freed if it 
> is killed and can exit.  This is better than simply get_mm_rss().
> 
> However, I think we seriously need to re-consider the implementation of 
> the lowmem killer entirely.  It currently abuses the use of TIF_MEMDIE, 
> which should ideally only be set for one thread on the system since it 
> allows unbounded access to global memory reserves.
> 

Hi David,

Does somebody do the work of re-implementation of the lowmem killer entirely
now? Could you give me some details? e.g. when and how?

Here are another two questions.
1) lmk has several lowmem thresholds, it's "lowmem_minfree[]", and the value is
static definition, so is it reasonable for different memory size(e.g. 2G/3G/4G...)
of smart phones?
2) There are many adjustable arguments in /proc/sys/vm/, and the default value
maybe not benefit for smart phones, so any suggestions?

Thanks,
Xishi Qiu

> It also abuses the user-visible /proc/self/oom_score_adj tunable: this 
> tunable is used by the generic oom killer to bias or discount a proportion 
> of memory from a process's usage.  This is the only supported semantic of 
> the tunable.  The lowmem killer uses it as a strict prioritization, so any 
> process with oom_score_adj higher than another process is preferred for 
> kill, REGARDLESS of memory usage.  This leads to priority inversion, the 
> user is unable to always define the same process to be killed by the 
> generic oom killer and the lowmem killer.  This is what happens when a 
> tunable with a very clear and defined purpose is used for other reasons.
> 
> I'd seriously consider not accepting any additional hacks on top of this 
> code until the implementation is rewritten.
> 
> .
>