From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF831C43381 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:56:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF5B21872 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:56:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="sQKSe3w+" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4CF5B21872 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AB6366B0289; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A63346B028A; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:56:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 92C5C6B028B; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:56:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-io1-f70.google.com (mail-io1-f70.google.com [209.85.166.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B3C6B0289 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-io1-f70.google.com with SMTP id i24so7306033iol.21 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:dkim-signature:mime-version:references :in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=H4rtgT9B6M1B9LQmL3+oXFzPJ5+Ql+wZXXQfq4r7qxM=; b=gt4agNX6vrm5jdCTRvVF+WaW3i+pAKr4g2P76BNQgjSlqAqXqVnBm7uDIg9xmvWqG2 UbcnCbd6295/d97ND3Nci5C0VynTqIaE8ePs4biwRktAftv3YC8bw0JKLwHIvpLgYzck AHcTMqEHwp/ppxcP1sEnnlSkccrMjFy7AsPSZIRoiu2yXjTgPL8BhqhrtJGn6KY/lJSU ztwmL8Lsvq11EX5+hKRwglJ7SCrXSFFOSu7pT7m0Bk/1xA1Yyf3ZyABT5AH/lNAJgkGG pIsnIKdxrTkBcy7/6nUfYfQjWb6Xf/BA4PEcvmyRGkHGK9JLe9K6EfezKL1YlV1g+gEF zl8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW3vE3ZBaUo/+g/fx0VE3wWPfR7a7fjDtiXT1bJaDsJuQVkr45P ur5JXr3ahwbKsrPD1p+Osnt2BmyntXxWfrVkokKjxmkkYcLQiokXbLYoJYuJ0dNicieh39FCOoT LI4yKd5I3tM/xzdW+/CArIiTKtT8tN1NcXIgLwgbPOQFLHL65C/k9Sxt2qy0VmrIHAw== X-Received: by 2002:a5e:dc0a:: with SMTP id b10mr2970878iok.34.1552665414090; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a5e:dc0a:: with SMTP id b10mr2970808iok.34.1552665412805; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:56:52 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1552665412; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Ei7CnqdhKAdwfQtZVIZV+Y1JNeQcPNgIGepssijVusappgl+oqjxBuh8yY8P7Jye0n IdLr3TZz/W68BKNcuCBGXoLjcr0StGMuX12yyOulR+gkPN8SytpNERbcqD0VRMF4CsqA DtusC6Xs+iNfNxEE74sDctck/fOJnrD9UA8eN0raibYH9+yHrlOicD4pfR51s9kcE4nA ljBU05EF/bDW/sLjSIo8x+7f0lCRmR5x4bfdZqwmvoezqDPFFBP2W7jo70esESQl3VkY mhrLG+/7qV59LtZ0V7hoFqVvf6eqaSyJf11DbjvdRrHbKdWyckAJtGRumqFMwxxBGlYY piZg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=H4rtgT9B6M1B9LQmL3+oXFzPJ5+Ql+wZXXQfq4r7qxM=; b=CoH79QRUydZv17Qg4Qx6+11EUTFCABGrebUCvsBP6xcvEO1XOnIbTr4/G0hV89SVDm xdzryPokxvqA0kjvYk+KhFquAZzxssxSJo/ZZsVqi7A3Ukza/EoRJ+mFmVRjSHLth7Ku 3jdwpow+xTvhkWXxZYo1ce/w/3Mg0F87TiqzRQvenoZE5PAimvSri1ZLchju/3pd+zfl Fwqmva/dNf7S7ZMgbVIHTfBUw5RNd4nmmClGwL0B30Uf/Jw8m5TjZsbG5FXohKDi4Iuo 5I7fD0CLSx5uqDi68OG+CCmvd1aSN7SzU2qxyoIB7ncxq+Qqoe6fN5jhAVC7IiFQkzRh xZSg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=sQKSe3w+; spf=pass (google.com: domain of surenb@google.com designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=surenb@google.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id u194sor3758937itb.26.2019.03.15.08.56.52 for (Google Transport Security); Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of surenb@google.com designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.65; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=sQKSe3w+; spf=pass (google.com: domain of surenb@google.com designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=surenb@google.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=H4rtgT9B6M1B9LQmL3+oXFzPJ5+Ql+wZXXQfq4r7qxM=; b=sQKSe3w+XoNEOHxv44wL0wTqwONaxtUvQC34Q2Nez1GqGkGvEXukH/JAod5bOJXGHm OKGDpaVbIA/dn/74y/fofwr/x6nLERCAStBftMQvXXcbmjhz98E7nUE+wwdzHn3khfx+ 9FC1ns2uL6HfNp+q032A5iCx39NEwhkRkYXDmt5pB6fDuk8LyAj1frF2LnOOv6lj8lgD 592ejppi3Gh6xhesU26P0CiVMsDdMDAR076ZgzCHEKe4oXwnXT7UB2gksgsfbwbQpcPB An5ekgh1mI2jscsUv9feC58UwwOfUQdGBYKOUdtUjOyki0GE6ap6da45meACeTZmwcCV sPRg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyqcIlbt1RfAFrK2X9pXdPK7c9C3TBI78IspfigtRt/4QFN//wL64B3tnVby9qAAl/BFark1nkjyptSDxFdTH8= X-Received: by 2002:a24:a81:: with SMTP id 123mr2553188itw.43.1552665412172; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:56:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190310203403.27915-1-sultan@kerneltoast.com> <20190311174320.GC5721@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190311175800.GA5522@sultan-box.localdomain> <20190311204626.GA3119@sultan-box.localdomain> <20190312080532.GE5721@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190312163741.GA2762@sultan-box.localdomain> <20190314204911.GA875@sultan-box.localdomain> <20190314231641.5a37932b@oasis.local.home> In-Reply-To: From: Suren Baghdasaryan Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:56:40 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] simple_lmk: Introduce Simple Low Memory Killer for Android To: Daniel Colascione Cc: Steven Rostedt , Sultan Alsawaf , Joel Fernandes , Tim Murray , Michal Hocko , Greg Kroah-Hartman , =?UTF-8?B?QXJ2ZSBIasO4bm5ldsOlZw==?= , Todd Kjos , Martijn Coenen , Christian Brauner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , "open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" , linux-mm , kernel-team Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 9:37 PM Daniel Colascione wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 8:16 PM Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:49:11 -0700 > > Sultan Alsawaf wrote: > > > > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but if you want to know when a process has died > > > after sending a SIGKILL to it, then why not just make the SIGKILL optionally > > > block until the process has died completely? It'd be rather trivial to just > > > store a pointer to an onstack completion inside the victim process' task_struct, > > > and then complete it in free_task(). > > > > How would you implement such a method in userspace? kill() doesn't take > > any parameters but the pid of the process you want to send a signal to, > > and the signal to send. This would require a new system call, and be > > quite a bit of work. > > That's what the pidfd work is for. Please read the original threads > about the motivation and design of that facility. > > > If you can solve this with an ebpf program, I > > strongly suggest you do that instead. > > Regarding process death notification: I will absolutely not support > putting aBPF and perf trace events on the critical path of core system > memory management functionality. Tracing and monitoring facilities are > great for learning about the system, but they were never intended to > be load-bearing. The proposed eBPF process-monitoring approach is just > a variant of the netlink proposal we discussed previously on the pidfd > threads; it has all of its drawbacks. We really need a core system > call --- really, we've needed robust process management since the > creation of unix --- and I'm glad that we're finally getting it. > Adding new system calls is not expensive; going to great lengths to > avoid adding one is like calling a helicopter to avoid crossing the > street. I don't think we should present an abuse of the debugging and > performance monitoring infrastructure as an alternative to a robust > and desperately-needed bit of core functionality that's neither hard > to add nor complex to implement nor expensive to use. > > Regarding the proposal for a new kernel-side lmkd: when possible, the > kernel should provide mechanism, not policy. Putting the low memory > killer back into the kernel after we've spent significant effort > making it possible for userspace to do that job. Compared to kernel > code, more easily understood, more easily debuggable, more easily > updated, and much safer. If we *can* move something out of the kernel, > we should. This patch moves us in exactly the wrong direction. Yes, we > need *something* that sits synchronously astride the page allocation > path and does *something* to stop a busy beaver allocator that eats > all the available memory before lmkd, even mlocked and realtime, can > respond. The OOM killer is adequate for this very rare case. > > With respect to kill timing: Tim is right about the need for two > levels of policy: first, a high-level process prioritization and > memory-demand balancing scheme (which is what OOM score adjustment > code in ActivityManager amounts to); and second, a low-level > process-killing methodology that maximizes sustainable memory reclaim > and minimizes unwanted side effects while killing those processes that > should be dead. Both of these policies belong in userspace --- because > they *can* be in userspace --- and userspace needs only a few tools, > most of which already exist, to do a perfectly adequate job. > > We do want killed processes to die promptly. That's why I support > boosting a process's priority somehow when lmkd is about to kill it. > The precise way in which we do that --- involving not only actual > priority, but scheduler knobs, cgroup assignment, core affinity, and > so on --- is a complex topic best left to userspace. lmkd already has > all the knobs it needs to implement whatever priority boosting policy > it wants. > > Hell, once we add a pidfd_wait --- which I plan to work on, assuming > nobody beats me to it, after pidfd_send_signal lands --- you can > imagine a general-purpose priority inheritance mechanism expediting > process death when a high-priority process waits on a pidfd_wait > handle for a condemned process. You know you're on the right track > design-wise when you start seeing this kind of elegant constructive > interference between seemingly-unrelated features. What we don't need > is some kind of blocking SIGKILL alternative or backdoor event > delivery system. When talking about pidfd_wait functionality do you mean something like this: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/345098/ ? I missed the discussion about it, could you please point me to it? > We definitely don't want to have to wait for a process's parent to > reap it. Instead, we want to wait for it to become a zombie. That's > why I designed my original exithand patch to fire death notification > upon transition to the zombie state, not upon process table removal, > and I expect pidfd_wait (or whatever we call it) to act the same way. > > In any case, there's a clear path forward here --- general-purpose, > cheap, and elegant --- and we should just focus on doing that instead > of more complex proposals with few advantages.