From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
To: Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
Cc: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/oom_kill: allow oom kill allocating task for non-global case
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:04:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALvZod71SyjvC7sRtkD7dSEeAbYH_ynvO_hDS=tY6KCt-kRJkQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dc7f54eb-933e-5bbb-7959-815dfbfcc836@redhat.com>
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:51 AM Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/7/21 2:43 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 9:45 AM Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/7/21 12:31 PM, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> >>> At the present time, in the context of memcg OOM, even when
> >>> sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task is enabled/or set, the "allocating"
> >>> task cannot be selected, as a target for the OOM killer.
> >>>
> >>> This patch removes the restriction entirely.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> mm/oom_kill.c | 6 +++---
> >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> >>> index eefd3f5fde46..3bae33e2d9c2 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> >>> @@ -1089,9 +1089,9 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> >>> oc->nodemask = NULL;
> >>> check_panic_on_oom(oc);
> >>>
> >>> - if (!is_memcg_oom(oc) && sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task &&
> >>> - current->mm && !oom_unkillable_task(current) &&
> >>> - oom_cpuset_eligible(current, oc) &&
> >>> + if (sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task && current->mm &&
> >>> + !oom_unkillable_task(current) &&
> >>> + oom_cpuset_eligible(current, oc) &&
> >>> current->signal->oom_score_adj != OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN) {
> >>> get_task_struct(current);
> >>> oc->chosen = current;
> >> To provide more context for this patch, we are actually seeing that in a
> >> customer report about OOM happened in a container where the dominating
> >> task used up most of the memory and it happened to be the task that
> >> triggered the OOM with the result that no killable process could be
> >> found.
> > Why was there no killable process? What about the process allocating
> > the memory or is this remote memcg charging?
>
> It is because the other processes have a oom_adjust_score of -1000. So
> they are non-killable. Anyway, they don't consume that much memory and
> killing them won't free up that much.
>
> The other process that uses most of the memory is the one that trigger
> the OOM kill in the first place because the memory limit has been
> reached in new memory allocation. Based on the current logic, this
> process cannot be killed at all even if we set the
> oom_kill_allocating_task to 1 if the OOM happens only within the memcg
> context, not in a global OOM situation.
I am not really against the patch but I am still not able to
understand why select_bad_process() was not able to select the current
process. mem_cgroup_scan_tasks() traverses all the processes in the
target memcg hierarchy, so why the current was skipped.
> This patch is to allow this
> process to be killed under this circumstance.
>
> Cheers,
> Longman
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-07 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-07 16:31 [RFC PATCH] mm/oom_kill: allow oom kill allocating task for non-global case Aaron Tomlin
2021-06-07 16:42 ` Waiman Long
2021-06-07 18:43 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-06-07 18:51 ` Waiman Long
2021-06-07 19:04 ` Michal Hocko
2021-06-07 19:18 ` Waiman Long
2021-06-07 19:36 ` Michal Hocko
2021-06-07 20:03 ` Michal Hocko
2021-06-07 20:44 ` Waiman Long
2021-06-08 6:22 ` Michal Hocko
2021-06-08 9:39 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-06-08 10:00 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-06-08 13:58 ` Michal Hocko
2021-06-08 15:22 ` Tetsuo Handa
2021-06-08 16:17 ` Michal Hocko
2021-06-09 14:35 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-06-10 10:00 ` Michal Hocko
2021-06-10 12:23 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-06-10 12:43 ` Michal Hocko
2021-06-10 13:36 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-06-10 14:06 ` Tetsuo Handa
2021-06-07 20:42 ` Waiman Long
2021-06-07 21:16 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-06-07 19:04 ` Shakeel Butt [this message]
2021-06-07 20:07 ` Waiman Long
2021-06-07 19:01 ` Michal Hocko
2021-06-07 19:26 ` Waiman Long
2021-06-07 19:47 ` Michal Hocko
2021-06-07 21:17 ` Aaron Tomlin
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='CALvZod71SyjvC7sRtkD7dSEeAbYH_ynvO_hDS=tY6KCt-kRJkQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=atomlin@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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).