From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
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: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:00:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160114110037.GC29943@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1601131633550.3406@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Wed 13-01-16 16:38:26, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > > 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.
Sorry I meant to say "administrator doesn't know why it has been
ignored". But it would have been better to say "administrator cannot do
anything about that".
> The administrator can check the kernel log for an oom kill.
What should the admin do when the request got ignored, though? sysrq+i?
sysrq+b?
> Killing additional processes is not going to help
Whether it is going to help or not is a different topic. My point is
that we have a sysrq action which might get ignored without providing
any explanation. But what I consider much bigger issue is that the
deliberate request of the admin is ignored in the first place. Me as an
admin do not expect the system knows better than me when I perform some
action.
> and has never been the semantics
> of the sysrq trigger, it is quite clearly defined as killing a process
> when out of memory,
I disagree. Being OOM has never been the requirement for sysrq+f to kill
a task. It should kill _a_ memory hog. Your system might be trashing to
the point you are not able to log in and resolve the situation in a
reasonable time yet you are still not OOM. sysrq+f is your only choice
then.
> not serial killing everything on the machine.
Which is not proposed here. The only thing I would like to achive is to
get rid of OOM killer heuristics which assume some forward progress in
order to prevent from killing a task. Those make perfect sense when the
system tries to resolve the OOM condition but when the administrator has
clearly asked to _kill_a_ memory hog then the result should be killing a
task which consumes memory (ideally the largest one).
What would be a regression scenario for this change? I can clearly see
deficiency of the current implementation so we should weigh cons and
pros here I believe.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-14 11:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ 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 ` [RFC 1/3] oom, sysrq: Skip over oom victims and killed tasks Michal Hocko
2016-01-13 0:41 ` David Rientjes
2016-01-13 9:30 ` Michal Hocko
2016-01-14 0:38 ` David Rientjes
2016-01-14 11:00 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-01-14 21:51 ` David Rientjes
2016-01-15 10:12 ` Michal Hocko
2016-01-15 15:37 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2016-01-19 23:01 ` David Rientjes
2016-01-19 22:57 ` David Rientjes
2016-01-20 9:49 ` Michal Hocko
2016-01-21 0:01 ` David Rientjes
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
2016-01-13 0:45 ` David Rientjes
2016-01-13 9:36 ` Michal Hocko
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
2016-01-13 0:51 ` David Rientjes
2016-01-13 9:40 ` Michal Hocko
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=20160114110037.GC29943@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.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: 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).