From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] oom, sysrq: Skip over oom victims and killed tasks Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:38:26 -0800 (PST) [thread overview] Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1601131633550.3406@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20160113093046.GA28942@dhcp22.suse.cz> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > > > index abefeeb42504..2b9dc5129a89 100644 > > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > > > @@ -326,6 +326,17 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(struct oom_control *oc, > > > case OOM_SCAN_OK: > > > break; > > > }; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * If we are doing sysrq+f then it doesn't make any sense to > > > + * check OOM victim or killed task because it might be stuck > > > + * and unable to terminate while the forced OOM might be the > > > + * only option left to get the system back to work. > > > + */ > > > + if (is_sysrq_oom(oc) && (test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE) || > > > + fatal_signal_pending(p))) > > > + continue; > > > + > > > points = oom_badness(p, NULL, oc->nodemask, totalpages); > > > if (!points || points < chosen_points) > > > continue; > > > > I think you can make a case for testing TIF_MEMDIE here since there is no > > chance of a panic from the sysrq trigger. However, I'm not convinced that > > checking fatal_signal_pending() is appropriate. > > My thinking was that such a process would get TIF_MEMDIE if it hits the > OOM from the allocator. > It certainly would get TIF_MEMDIE set if it needs to allocate memory itself and it calls the oom killer. That doesn't mean that we should kill a different process, though, when the killed process should exit and free its memory. So NACK to the fatal_signal_pending() check here. > > I think it would be > > better for sysrq+f to first select a process with fatal_signal_pending() > > set so it silently gets access to memory reserves and then a second > > sysrq+f to choose a different process, if necessary, because of > > TIF_MEMDIE. > > The disadvantage of this approach is that sysrq+f might silently be > ignored and the administrator doesn't have any signal about that. The administrator can check the kernel log for an oom kill. Killing additional processes is not going to help and has never been the semantics of the sysrq trigger, it is quite clearly defined as killing a process when out of memory, not serial killing everything on the machine.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] oom, sysrq: Skip over oom victims and killed tasks Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:38:26 -0800 (PST) [thread overview] Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1601131633550.3406@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20160113093046.GA28942@dhcp22.suse.cz> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > > > index abefeeb42504..2b9dc5129a89 100644 > > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > > > @@ -326,6 +326,17 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(struct oom_control *oc, > > > case OOM_SCAN_OK: > > > break; > > > }; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * If we are doing sysrq+f then it doesn't make any sense to > > > + * check OOM victim or killed task because it might be stuck > > > + * and unable to terminate while the forced OOM might be the > > > + * only option left to get the system back to work. > > > + */ > > > + if (is_sysrq_oom(oc) && (test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE) || > > > + fatal_signal_pending(p))) > > > + continue; > > > + > > > points = oom_badness(p, NULL, oc->nodemask, totalpages); > > > if (!points || points < chosen_points) > > > continue; > > > > I think you can make a case for testing TIF_MEMDIE here since there is no > > chance of a panic from the sysrq trigger. However, I'm not convinced that > > checking fatal_signal_pending() is appropriate. > > My thinking was that such a process would get TIF_MEMDIE if it hits the > OOM from the allocator. > It certainly would get TIF_MEMDIE set if it needs to allocate memory itself and it calls the oom killer. That doesn't mean that we should kill a different process, though, when the killed process should exit and free its memory. So NACK to the fatal_signal_pending() check here. > > I think it would be > > better for sysrq+f to first select a process with fatal_signal_pending() > > set so it silently gets access to memory reserves and then a second > > sysrq+f to choose a different process, if necessary, because of > > TIF_MEMDIE. > > The disadvantage of this approach is that sysrq+f might silently be > ignored and the administrator doesn't have any signal about that. The administrator can check the kernel log for an oom kill. Killing additional processes is not going to help and has never been the semantics of the sysrq trigger, it is quite clearly defined as killing a process when out of memory, not serial killing everything on the machine. -- 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:[~2016-01-14 0:38 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-01-12 21:00 [RFC 0/3] oom: few enahancements Michal Hocko 2016-01-12 21:00 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-12 21:00 ` [RFC 1/3] oom, sysrq: Skip over oom victims and killed tasks Michal Hocko 2016-01-12 21:00 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-13 0:41 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-13 0:41 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-13 9:30 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-13 9:30 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-14 0:38 ` David Rientjes [this message] 2016-01-14 0:38 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-14 11:00 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-14 11:00 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-14 21:51 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-14 21:51 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-15 10:12 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-15 10:12 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-15 15:37 ` One Thousand Gnomes 2016-01-15 15:37 ` One Thousand Gnomes 2016-01-19 23:01 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-19 23:01 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-19 22:57 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-19 22:57 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-20 9:49 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-20 9:49 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-21 0:01 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-21 0:01 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-21 9:15 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-21 9:15 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-12 21:00 ` [RFC 2/3] oom: Do not sacrifice already OOM killed children Michal Hocko 2016-01-12 21:00 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-13 0:45 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-13 0:45 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-13 9:36 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-13 9:36 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-14 0:42 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-14 0:42 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-12 21:00 ` [RFC 3/3] oom: Do not try to sacrifice small children Michal Hocko 2016-01-12 21:00 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-13 0:51 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-13 0:51 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-13 9:40 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-13 9:40 ` Michal Hocko 2016-01-14 0:43 ` David Rientjes 2016-01-14 0:43 ` David Rientjes
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=alpine.DEB.2.10.1601131633550.3406@chino.kir.corp.google.com \ --to=rientjes@google.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \ /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.