Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?

From	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?
Date	2015-09-20 15:20 +0200
Message-ID	<qaMH8-U9-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<q9LN8-2Wt-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qarW1-4WN-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qasIq-5QL-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 09/19, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Sat 19-09-15 17:03:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Stupid idea. Can't we help the memory hog to free its memory? This is
> > orthogonal to other improvements we can do.
> >
> > Please don't tell me the patch below is ugly, incomplete and suboptimal
> > in many ways, I know ;) I am not sure it is even correct. Just to explain
> > what I mean.
>
> Unmapping the memory for the oom victim has been already mentioned as a
> way to improve the OOM killer behavior. Nobody has implemented that yet
> though unfortunately. I have that on my TODO list since we have
> discussed it with Mel at LSF.

OK, good. So perhaps we should try to do this.

>
> > Perhaps oom_unmap_func() should only zap the anonymous vmas... and there
> > are a lot of other details which should be discussed if this can make any
> > sense.
>
> I have just returned from an internal conference so my head is
> completely cabbaged. I will have a look on Monday. From a quick look
> the idea is feasible. You cannot rely on the worker context because
> workqueues might be completely stuck with at this stage.

Yes this is true. See another email, probably oom-kill.c needs its own
kthread.

And again, we should actually try to avoid queue_work or queue_kthread_work
in any case. But not in the initial implementation. And initial implementation
could use workqueues, I think. I the likely case system_unbound_wq pool
should have an idle thread.

> You also cannot
> do take mmap_sem directly because that might be held already so you need
> a try_lock instead.

Still can't understand this part. See other emails, perhaps I missed
something.

> Focusing on anonymous vmas first sounds like a good
> idea to me because that would be simpler I guess.

And safer.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Thread

[PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Kyle Walker <kwalker@redhat.com> - 2015-09-17 20:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-17 21:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> - 2015-09-18 17:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-18 18:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2015-09-18 18:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-18 19:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> - 2015-09-18 19:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-18 21:20 +0200
            Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> - 2015-09-18 21:20 +0200
              Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> - 2015-09-19 00:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-09-19 10:40 +0200
            Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2015-09-19 16:40 +0200
              Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-09-19 18:00 +0200
              Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-09-22 01:40 +0200
                Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2015-09-22 07:40 +0200
            Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-19 16:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-09-22 01:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-09-19 10:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-09-19 10:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-09-22 01:10 +0200
  can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-19 17:10 +0200
    Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-19 17:20 +0200
    Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-09-19 18:00 +0200
      Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-20 15:20 +0200
    Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-09-20 00:30 +0200
      Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 01:10 +0200
        Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-09-20 01:20 +0200
      Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-09-20 11:40 +0200
        Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-20 15:10 +0200
      Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-20 15:10 +0200
        Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-09-20 20:10 +0200
          Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 21:10 +0200
            Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-21 16:10 +0200
          Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-21 15:50 +0200
            Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-09-21 16:30 +0200
              Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-21 17:40 +0200
                Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-09-21 18:20 +0200
                Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2015-09-21 19:00 +0200
                Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-09-22 01:50 +0200
            Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-09-21 19:00 +0200
    Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2015-09-20 17:00 +0200
      Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-20 17:00 +0200

csiph-web