From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com, oleg@redhat.com,
vdavydov@parallels.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:29:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160616142940.GK6836@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201606162154.CGE05294.HJQOSMFFVFtOOL@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On Thu 16-06-16 21:54:27, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sat 11-06-16 17:10:03, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> I still don't like it. current->mm == NULL in
>
> - if (current->mm &&
> - (fatal_signal_pending(current) || task_will_free_mem(current))) {
> + if (task_will_free_mem(current)) {
>
> is not highly unlikely. You obviously break commit d7a94e7e11badf84
> ("oom: don't count on mm-less current process") on CONFIG_MMU=n kernels.
I still fail to see why you care about that case so much. The heuristic
was broken for other reasons before this patch. The patch fixes a class
of issues for both mmu and nommu. I can restore the current->mm check
for now but the more I am thinking about it the less I am sure the
commit you are referring to is evem correct/necessary.
It claims that the OOM killer would be stuck because the child would be
sitting in the final schedule() until the parent reaps it. That is not
true, though, because victim would be unhashed down in release_task()
path so it is not visible by the oom killer when it is waiting for the
parent. I have completely missed that part when reviewing the patch. Or
am I missing something...
Anyway, would you be OK with the patch if I added the current->mm check
and resolve its necessity in a separate patch?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-16 14:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-09 11:52 [PATCH 0/10 -v4] Handle oom bypass more gracefully Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 01/10] proc, oom: drop bogus task_lock and mm check Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 02/10] proc, oom: drop bogus sighand lock Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 03/10] proc, oom_adj: extract oom_score_adj setting into a helper Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 04/10] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj Michal Hocko
2016-06-15 15:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 05/10] mm, oom: skip vforked tasks from being selected Michal Hocko
2016-06-15 14:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-16 6:24 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 06/10] mm, oom: kill all tasks sharing the mm Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 13:18 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-09 14:20 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-11 8:10 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-13 11:27 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-16 12:54 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-16 14:29 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-06-16 15:40 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-16 15:53 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-17 11:38 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-17 12:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-17 13:12 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-17 13:29 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 08/10] mm, oom: task_will_free_mem should skip oom_reaped tasks Michal Hocko
2016-06-17 11:35 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-17 12:56 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 09/10] mm, oom_reaper: do not attempt to reap a task more than twice Michal Hocko
2016-06-15 14:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-16 6:28 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 10/10] mm, oom: hide mm which is shared with kthread or global init Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 15:15 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-09 15:41 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-16 13:15 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-16 13:36 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-15 14:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-16 6:31 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-13 11:23 ` [PATCH 0/10 -v4] Handle oom bypass more gracefully Michal Hocko
2016-06-13 14:13 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-14 20:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-14 20:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-16 6:33 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-15 15:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-16 6:34 ` Michal Hocko
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-06-20 12:43 [PATCH 0/10 -v5] " Michal Hocko
2016-06-20 12:43 ` [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 ` [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160616142940.GK6836@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).