[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch v3] mm, oom: fix unnecessary killing of additional processes
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018, Tetsuo Handa wrote:

> > Absent oom_lock serialization, this is exactly working as intended. You
> > could argue that once the thread has reached exit_mmap() and begins oom
> > reaping that it should be allowed to finish before the oom reaper declares
> > MMF_OOM_SKIP. That could certainly be helpful, I simply haven't
> > encountered a usecase where it were needed. Or, we could restart the oom
> > expiration when MMF_UNSTABLE is set and deem that progress is being made
> > so it give it some extra time. In practice, again, we haven't seen this
> > needed. But either of those are very easy to add in as well. Which would
> > you prefer?
> I don't think we need to introduce user-visible knob interface (even if it is in
> debugfs), for I think that my approach can solve your problem. Please try OOM lockup
> (CVE-2016-10723) mitigation patch ( )

The issue I am fixing has nothing to do with contention on oom_lock, it
has to do with the inability of the oom reaper to free memory for one or
more of several reasons: mlock, blockable mmus, ptes, mm->mmap_sem
contention, and then the setting of MMF_OOM_SKIP to choose another victim
before the original victim even reaches exit_mmap(). Thus, removing
oom_lock from exit_mmap() will not fix this issue.

I agree that oom_lock can be removed from exit_mmap() and it would be
helpful to do so, and may address a series of problems that we have yet to
encounter, but this would not fix the almost immediate setting of
MMF_OOM_SKIP that occurs with minimal memory freeing due to the oom

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-20 22:21    [W:0.101 / U:0.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site