Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1336516
| From | Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim. |
| Date | 2016-02-17 16:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r3cdc-8f1-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <r39S1-6yA-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <r3a1H-6Rw-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <r3aXM-7tK-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <r3bAt-7Ju-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <r3bTQ-87x-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Please see http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201602151958.HCJ48972.FFOFOLMHSQVJtO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp . > > > > > > I have missed this one. Reading... > > > > > > Hmm, so you are not referring to OOM killed task but naturally exiting > > > thread which is racing with the OOM killer. I guess you have a point > > > there! Could you update the changelog with the above example and repost > > > please? > > > > > Yes and I resent that patch as v2. > > > > I think that the same problem exists for any task_will_free_mem()-based > > optimizations. Can we eliminate them because these optimized paths are not > > handled by the OOM reaper which means that we have no means other than > > "[PATCH 5/6] mm,oom: Re-enable OOM killer using timers." ? > > Well, only oom_kill_process usage of task_will_free_mem might be a > problem because out_of_memory operates on the current task so it must be > in the allocation path and access to memory reserves should help it to > continue. Allowing access to memory reserves by task_will_free_mem(current) in out_of_memory() will help current to continue, but that does not guarantee that current will not be later blocked at down_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem). It is possible that one of threads sharing current thread's memory is calling out_of_memory() from mmap() and is waiting for current to set current->mm = NULL. > Wrt. oom_kill_process this will be more tricky. I guess we want to > teach oom_reaper to operate on such a task which would be a more robust > solution than removing the check altogether. > Thus, I think there is no difference between task_will_free_mem(current) case and task_will_free_mem(p) case. We want to teach the OOM reaper to operate whenever TIF_MEMDIE is set. But this means that we want mm_is_reapable() check because there might be !SIGKILL && !PF_EXITING threads when we run these optimized paths. We will need to use timer if mm_is_reapable() == false after all. Why don't you accept timer based workaround now, even if you have a plan to update the OOM reaper for handling these optimized paths?
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 0/6] preparation for merging the OOM reaper Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-17 11:30 +0100
[PATCH 1/6] mm,oom: exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-17 11:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/6] mm,oom: exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-17 13:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/6] mm,oom: exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-17 17:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/6] mm,oom: exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-17 18:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/6] mm,oom: exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-17 22:00 +0100
[PATCH 6/6] mm,oom: wait for OOM victims when using oom_kill_allocating_task == 1 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-17 11:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm,oom: wait for OOM victims when using oom_kill_allocating_task == 1 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-17 14:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm,oom: wait for OOM victims when using oom_kill_allocating_task == 1 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-18 11:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm,oom: wait for OOM victims when using oom_kill_allocating_task == 1 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-18 13:30 +0100
[PATCH 4/6] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM-unkillable. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-17 11:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM-unkillable. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-17 14:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM-unkillable. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-17 14:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM-unkillable. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-17 14:50 +0100
[PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-17 11:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-17 14:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-17 14:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-17 15:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-17 15:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-17 16:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-17 16:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-17 17:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-18 12:30 +0100
[PATCH 3/6] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM victims. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-17 11:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM victims. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-17 14:10 +0100
[PATCH 5/6] mm,oom: Re-enable OOM killer using timers. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-02-17 11:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 5/6] mm,oom: Re-enable OOM killer using timers. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-17 14:30 +0100
csiph-web