Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1309691
| From | David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. |
| Date | 2016-01-14 23:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qQY61-4Io-39@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <qOCjh-5hH-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQhDH-cE-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQrjI-6WP-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQEqC-7BF-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQNkd-5Dw-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > > @@ -171,7 +195,7 @@ unsigned long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > > > > if (oom_unkillable_task(p, memcg, nodemask))
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > - p = find_lock_task_mm(p);
> > > > > + p = find_lock_non_victim_task_mm(p);
> > > > > if (!p)
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I understand how this may make your test case pass, but I simply don't
> > > > understand how this could possibly be the correct thing to do. This would
> > > > cause oom_badness() to return 0 for any process where a thread has
> > > > TIF_MEMDIE set. If the oom killer is called from the page allocator,
> > > > kills a thread, and it is recalled before that thread may exit, then this
> > > > will panic the system if there are no other eligible processes to kill.
> > > >
> > > Why? oom_badness() is called after oom_scan_process_thread() returned OOM_SCAN_OK.
> > > oom_scan_process_thread() returns OOM_SCAN_ABORT if a thread has TIF_MEMDIE set.
> > >
> >
> > oom_scan_process_thread() checks for TIF_MEMDIE on p, not on p's threads.
> > If one of p's threads has TIF_MEMDIE set and p does not, we actually want
> > to set TIF_MEMDIE for p. That's the current behavior since it will lead
> > to p->mm memory freeing. Your patch is excluding such processes entirely
> > and selecting another process to kill unnecessarily.
> >
>
> I think p's threads are checked by oom_scan_process_thread() for TIF_MEMDIE
> even if p does not have TIF_MEMDIE. What am I misunderstanding about what
> for_each_process_thread(g, p) is doing?
>
> #define for_each_process_thread(p, t) for_each_process(p) for_each_thread(p, t)
>
> select_bad_process() {
> for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
> oom_scan_process_thread(oc, p, totalpages));
> oom_badness(p);
> }
> }
>
Yes, select_bad_process() iterates over threads, that is obvious. The
point is that today it can select a thread independent of whether any of
its other threads have TIF_MEMDIE set, which is the desired behavior per
the above. With your change, that is no longer possible because we
disregard _all_ threads if one of them has TIF_MEMDIE set.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-01-07 10:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-01-07 14:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-01-07 16:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-01-07 16:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-01-11 16:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-01-12 12:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-01-12 21:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-01-13 11:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-01-13 16:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-01-07 16:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-01-08 11:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2016-01-13 01:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-01-13 12:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2016-01-14 02:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-01-14 11:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2016-01-14 23:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-01-14 23:30 +0100
csiph-web