[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch v4] mm, oom: fix unnecessary killing of additional processes
On 2018/07/25 7:51, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>>> You might worry about situations where __oom_reap_task_mm() is a no-op.
>>>> But that is not always true. There is no point with emitting
>>>> pr_info("oom_reaper: unable to reap pid:%d (%s)\n", ...);
>>>> debug_show_all_locks();
>>>> noise and doing
>>>> set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags);
>>>> because exit_mmap() will not release oom_lock until __oom_reap_task_mm()
>>>> completes. That is, except extra noise, there is no difference with
>>>> current behavior which sets set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags) after
>>>> returning from __oom_reap_task_mm().
>>> v5 has restructured how exit_mmap() serializes its unmapping with the oom
>>> reaper. It sets MMF_OOM_SKIP while holding mm->mmap_sem.
>> I think that v5 is still wrong. exit_mmap() keeps mmap_sem held for write does
>> not prevent oom_reap_task() from emitting the noise and setting MMF_OOM_SKIP
>> after timeout. Since your purpose is to wait for release of memory which could
>> not be reclaimed by __oom_reap_task_mm(), what if __oom_reap_task_mm() was no-op and
>> exit_mmap() was preempted immediately after returning from __oom_reap_task_mm() ?
> If exit_mmap() gets preempted indefinitely before it can free any memory,
> we are better off oom killing another process. The purpose of the timeout
> is to give an oom victim an amount of time to free its memory and exit
> before selecting another victim.

There is no point with emitting the noise.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-25 00:56    [W:0.065 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site