Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1701011
| From | Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm, oom: do not grant oom victims full memory reserves access |
| Date | 2017-08-01 15:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u9EWf-47K-35@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <u7MXU-4d2-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <u9Ejw-3Ut-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <u9Etd-3XT-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <u9Etd-3XT-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <u9EWf-47K-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue 01-08-17 13:42:38, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:29:05PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 01-08-17 13:23:44, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:16:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Thu 27-07-17 11:03:55, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > this is a part of a larger series I posted back in Oct last year [1]. I > > > > > have dropped patch 3 because it was incorrect and patch 4 is not > > > > > applicable without it. > > > > > > > > > > The primary reason to apply patch 1 is to remove a risk of the complete > > > > > memory depletion by oom victims. While this is a theoretical risk right > > > > > now there is a demand for memcg aware oom killer which might kill all > > > > > processes inside a memcg which can be a lot of tasks. That would make > > > > > the risk quite real. > > > > > > > > > > This issue is addressed by limiting access to memory reserves. We no > > > > > longer use TIF_MEMDIE to grant the access and use tsk_is_oom_victim > > > > > instead. See Patch 1 for more details. Patch 2 is a trivial follow up > > > > > cleanup. > > > > > > > > Any comments, concerns? Can we merge it? > > > > > > I've rebased the cgroup-aware OOM killer and ran some tests. > > > Everything works well. > > > > Thanks for your testing. Can I assume your Tested-by? > > Sure. Thanks! > I wonder if we can get rid of TIF_MEMDIE completely, > if we will count OOM victims on per-oom-victim-signal-struct rather than > on per-thread basis? Say, assign oom_mm using cmpxchg, and call > exit_oom_victim() from __exit_signal()? __thaw_task() can be called from > mark_oom_victim() unconditionally. > > Do you see any problems with this approach? Ohh, I wish we could do that. All my previous attempts failed though. I have always hit the problem to tell that the last thread of the process is exiting to know when to call exit_oom_victim and release the oom disable barrier. Maybe things have changed somehow since I've tried the last time but this is a tricky code. I will certainly get back to it some day but not likely anytime soon. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm, oom: do not grant oom victims full memory reserves access Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-08-01 14:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm, oom: do not grant oom victims full memory reserves access Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-08-01 14:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm, oom: do not grant oom victims full memory reserves access Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-08-01 15:00 +0200
csiph-web