From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com, oleg@redhat.com,
vdavydov@parallels.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:20:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160603122030.GG20676@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201606032100.AIH12958.HMOOOFLJSFQtVF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On Fri 03-06-16 21:00:31, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Patch 8 is new in this version and it addresses an issue pointed out
> > by 0-day OOM report where an oom victim was reaped several times.
>
> I believe we need below once-you-nacked patch as well.
>
> It would be possible to clear victim->signal->oom_flag_origin when
> that victim gets TIF_MEMDIE, but I think that moving oom_task_origin()
> test to oom_badness() will allow oom_scan_process_thread() which calls
> oom_unkillable_task() only for testing task->signal->oom_victims to be
> removed by also moving task->signal->oom_victims test to oom_badness().
> Thus, I prefer this way.
Can we please forget about oom_task_origin for _now_. At least until we
resolve the current pile? I am really skeptical oom_task_origin is a
real problem and even if you think it might be and pulling its handling
outside of oom_scan_process_thread would be better for other reasons we
can do that later. Or do you insist this all has to be done in one go?
To be honest, I feel less and less confident as the pile grows and
chances of introducing new bugs just grows after each rebase which tries
to address more subtle and unlikely issues.
Do no take me wrong but I would rather make sure that the current pile
is reviewed and no unintentional side effects are introduced than open
yet another can of worms.
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-03 12:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-03 9:16 [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 ` [PATCH 01/10] proc, oom: drop bogus task_lock and mm check Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 ` [PATCH 02/10] proc, oom: drop bogus sighand lock Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 ` [PATCH 03/10] proc, oom_adj: extract oom_score_adj setting into a helper Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 ` [PATCH 04/10] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 ` [PATCH 05/10] mm, oom: skip vforked tasks from being selected Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 ` [PATCH 06/10] mm, oom: kill all tasks sharing the mm Michal Hocko
2016-06-06 22:27 ` David Rientjes
2016-06-06 23:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-07 6:37 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-07 22:15 ` David Rientjes
2016-06-08 6:22 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08 22:51 ` David Rientjes
2016-06-09 6:46 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 ` [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 ` [PATCH 08/10] mm, oom: task_will_free_mem should skip oom_reaped tasks Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 ` [RFC PATCH 09/10] mm, oom_reaper: do not attempt to reap a task more than twice Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 ` [RFC PATCH 10/10] mm, oom: hide mm which is shared with kthread or global init Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 15:16 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-06 8:15 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-06 13:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-07 6:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 12:00 ` [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-03 12:20 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-06-03 12:22 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-04 10:57 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-06 8:39 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 15:17 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-06 8:36 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-07 14:30 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-07 15:05 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-07 21:49 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-08 7:27 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08 14:55 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-08 16:05 ` Michal Hocko
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=20160603122030.GG20676@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.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).