From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: Make coredump interruptible Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:42:10 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20100602154210.GA9622@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20100602221805.F524.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (add Roland) On 06/02, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > Otoh, if we make do_coredump() interruptible (and we should do this > > in any case), then perhaps the TIF_MEMDIE+PF_COREDUMP is not really > > needed? Afaics we always send SIGKILL along with TIF_MEMDIE. > > How is to make per-process oom flag + interruptible coredump? > > this per-process oom flag can be used vmscan shortcut exiting too. > (IOW, It can help DavidR mmap_sem issue) Firstly, this solution is not complete. We should make it really interruptible (from user-space too), but we need more changes for this (in particular we need to distinguish group-exit/exec cases from the explicit SIGKILL case). Let's not discuss this here, this is the different story. But. I agree very much that it makes sense to add the quick fix right now. Even if this fix will be superseded by the "proper" fixes later. > --- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c > +++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c > @@ -2038,6 +2038,11 @@ static int elf_core_dump(struct coredump_params *cprm) > page_cache_release(page); > } else > stop = !dump_seek(cprm->file, PAGE_SIZE); > + > + /* Now, The process received OOM. Exit soon! */ > + if (current->signal->oom_victim) > + stop = 1; Agreed, most problems with memory allocations should come from this loop. > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > @@ -544,6 +544,9 @@ struct signal_struct { > int notify_count; > struct task_struct *group_exit_task; > > + /* true mean the process is OOM-killer victim. */ > + bool oom_victim; Well, the new word in signal_struct is not nice. It is better to set SIGNAL_OOM_XXX in ->signal->flags (this needs ->siglock). But. I don't think that signal_struct is the right place for the marker. The thread which actually dumps the core doesn't necessarily belong to the same thread group, but it can share ->mm with the selected oom victim. IOW, we should mark ->mm instead (perhaps mm->flags) or mm->core_state. This in turn means we need find_lock_task_mm(). What do you think? Oleg.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: Make coredump interruptible Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:42:10 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20100602154210.GA9622@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20100602221805.F524.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (add Roland) On 06/02, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > Otoh, if we make do_coredump() interruptible (and we should do this > > in any case), then perhaps the TIF_MEMDIE+PF_COREDUMP is not really > > needed? Afaics we always send SIGKILL along with TIF_MEMDIE. > > How is to make per-process oom flag + interruptible coredump? > > this per-process oom flag can be used vmscan shortcut exiting too. > (IOW, It can help DavidR mmap_sem issue) Firstly, this solution is not complete. We should make it really interruptible (from user-space too), but we need more changes for this (in particular we need to distinguish group-exit/exec cases from the explicit SIGKILL case). Let's not discuss this here, this is the different story. But. I agree very much that it makes sense to add the quick fix right now. Even if this fix will be superseded by the "proper" fixes later. > --- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c > +++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c > @@ -2038,6 +2038,11 @@ static int elf_core_dump(struct coredump_params *cprm) > page_cache_release(page); > } else > stop = !dump_seek(cprm->file, PAGE_SIZE); > + > + /* Now, The process received OOM. Exit soon! */ > + if (current->signal->oom_victim) > + stop = 1; Agreed, most problems with memory allocations should come from this loop. > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > @@ -544,6 +544,9 @@ struct signal_struct { > int notify_count; > struct task_struct *group_exit_task; > > + /* true mean the process is OOM-killer victim. */ > + bool oom_victim; Well, the new word in signal_struct is not nice. It is better to set SIGNAL_OOM_XXX in ->signal->flags (this needs ->siglock). But. I don't think that signal_struct is the right place for the marker. The thread which actually dumps the core doesn't necessarily belong to the same thread group, but it can share ->mm with the selected oom victim. IOW, we should mark ->mm instead (perhaps mm->flags) or mm->core_state. This in turn means we need find_lock_task_mm(). What do you think? Oleg. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-02 15:43 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 110+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2010-05-31 9:33 [PATCH 1/5] oom: select_bad_process: check PF_KTHREAD instead of !mm to skip kthreads KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-05-31 9:33 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-05-31 9:35 ` [PATCH 2/5] oom: select_bad_process: PF_EXITING check should take ->mm into account KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-05-31 9:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-05-31 16:43 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-05-31 16:43 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-01 1:10 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-01 1:10 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-01 20:18 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-01 20:18 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-02 13:54 ` [PATCH] oom: remove PF_EXITING check completely KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-02 13:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-02 15:54 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-02 15:54 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-02 21:02 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-02 21:02 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-03 4:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-03 4:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-03 6:29 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-03 6:29 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-02 13:54 ` [PATCH] oom: Make coredump interruptible KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-02 13:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-02 15:42 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message] 2010-06-02 15:42 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-02 17:29 ` Roland McGrath 2010-06-02 17:29 ` Roland McGrath 2010-06-02 17:53 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-02 17:53 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-02 18:58 ` Roland McGrath 2010-06-02 18:58 ` Roland McGrath 2010-06-02 20:38 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-02 20:38 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-03 14:03 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-03 14:03 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-04 10:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-04 10:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-04 11:27 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-04 11:27 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-04 11:34 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-04 11:34 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-09 19:53 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-09 19:53 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-09 20:41 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-09 20:41 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-09 21:03 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-09 21:03 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-13 11:24 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-13 11:24 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-13 15:53 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-13 15:53 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-13 17:13 ` uninterruptible CLONE_VFORK (Was: oom: Make coredump interruptible) Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-13 17:13 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-14 0:56 ` Roland McGrath 2010-06-14 0:56 ` Roland McGrath 2010-06-14 16:33 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-14 16:33 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-14 19:17 ` Roland McGrath 2010-06-14 19:17 ` Roland McGrath 2010-06-28 17:33 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-28 17:33 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-28 18:04 ` Roland McGrath 2010-06-28 18:04 ` Roland McGrath 2010-06-14 0:36 ` [PATCH] oom: Make coredump interruptible Roland McGrath 2010-06-14 0:36 ` Roland McGrath 2010-06-14 0:26 ` Roland McGrath 2010-06-14 0:26 ` Roland McGrath 2010-06-01 20:39 ` [PATCH 2/5] oom: select_bad_process: PF_EXITING check should take ->mm into account David Rientjes 2010-06-01 20:39 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-31 9:36 ` [PATCH 3/5] oom: introduce find_lock_task_mm() to fix !mm false positives KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-05-31 9:36 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-01 0:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 2010-06-01 0:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 2010-06-01 20:42 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-01 20:42 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-02 16:05 ` Minchan Kim 2010-06-02 16:05 ` Minchan Kim 2010-05-31 9:37 ` [PATCH 4/5] oom: the points calculation of child processes must use find_lock_task_mm() too KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-05-31 9:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-05-31 16:56 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-05-31 16:56 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-05-31 23:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-05-31 23:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-05-31 9:38 ` [PATCH 5/5] oom: __oom_kill_task() " KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-05-31 9:38 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-01 1:02 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 2010-06-01 1:02 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 2010-06-01 20:44 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-01 20:44 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-01 0:54 ` [PATCH 1/5] oom: select_bad_process: check PF_KTHREAD instead of !mm to skip kthreads KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 2010-06-01 0:54 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 2010-06-01 20:36 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-01 20:36 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-01 21:20 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-01 21:20 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-01 21:26 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-01 21:26 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-02 13:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-02 13:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2010-06-02 21:09 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-02 21:09 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-02 21:33 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-02 21:33 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-02 21:46 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-02 21:46 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-03 14:27 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-03 14:27 ` Oleg Nesterov 2010-06-03 20:11 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-03 20:11 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-02 15:32 ` Minchan Kim 2010-06-02 15:32 ` Minchan Kim
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=20100602154210.GA9622@redhat.com \ --to=oleg@redhat.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \ --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=npiggin@suse.de \ --cc=rientjes@google.com \ --cc=roland@redhat.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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.