From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>, 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> Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: Make coredump interruptible Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:53:54 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20100613155354.GA8428@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20100613175547.616F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> On 06/13, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > On 06/04, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > Perhaps something like below makes sense for now. > > Probably, this works. at least I don't find any problems. > But umm... Do you mean we can't implement per-process oom flags? Sorry, can't understand what you mean. > example, > 1) back to implement signal->oom_victim > because We are using SIGKILL for OOM and struct signal > naturally represent signal target. Yes, but if this process participates in the coredump, we should find the right thread, or mark mm or mm->core_state. In fact, I was never sure that oom-kill should kill the single process. Perhaps it should kill all tasks using the same ->mm instead. But this is another story. > 2) mm->nr_oom_killed_task > just avoid simple flag. instead counting number of tasks of > oom-killed. again, can't understand. > I think both avoid your explained problem. Am I missing something? I guess that I am missing something ;) Please clarify? > But, again, I have no objection to your patch. because I really hope to > fix coredump vs oom issue. Yes, I think this is important. And if we keep the PF_EXITING check in select_bad_process(), it should be fixed so that at least the coredump can't fool it. And the "p != current" is obviously not right too. I'll try to do something next week, the patches should be simple. Oleg.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>, 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> Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: Make coredump interruptible Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:53:54 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20100613155354.GA8428@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20100613175547.616F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> On 06/13, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > On 06/04, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > Perhaps something like below makes sense for now. > > Probably, this works. at least I don't find any problems. > But umm... Do you mean we can't implement per-process oom flags? Sorry, can't understand what you mean. > example, > 1) back to implement signal->oom_victim > because We are using SIGKILL for OOM and struct signal > naturally represent signal target. Yes, but if this process participates in the coredump, we should find the right thread, or mark mm or mm->core_state. In fact, I was never sure that oom-kill should kill the single process. Perhaps it should kill all tasks using the same ->mm instead. But this is another story. > 2) mm->nr_oom_killed_task > just avoid simple flag. instead counting number of tasks of > oom-killed. again, can't understand. > I think both avoid your explained problem. Am I missing something? I guess that I am missing something ;) Please clarify? > But, again, I have no objection to your patch. because I really hope to > fix coredump vs oom issue. Yes, I think this is important. And if we keep the PF_EXITING check in select_bad_process(), it should be fixed so that at least the coredump can't fool it. And the "p != current" is obviously not right too. I'll try to do something next week, the patches should be simple. 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:[~2010-06-13 15:55 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 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 [this message] 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=20100613155354.GA8428@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.