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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 06BC8C10F00 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:36:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA3320854 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:36:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelfernandes.org header.i=@joelfernandes.org header.b="DypriJsH" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729087AbfCONgO (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:36:14 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f195.google.com ([209.85.160.195]:35388 "EHLO mail-qt1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727248AbfCONgN (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:36:13 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f195.google.com with SMTP id h39so10073649qte.2 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 06:36:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelfernandes.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=VKfVpaxZoxyBURh7QyO3ZULqx69a8OaThEQCt8FoTew=; b=DypriJsHzRFZ8FHMG3w+iXrHK4g88dJrwe9SlU6tuDtj36SzuZ8nyphK4opqxcD2rC iXyUj2WTVz6Sg5zw3n6zHK2edM7QYZygthWj5HMZuuylhy4TGmwP62F4wIa8AVE8np70 CJFmX1ZOs7jXHhVBGCEG2BTyDzdL+xy1R3gOU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=VKfVpaxZoxyBURh7QyO3ZULqx69a8OaThEQCt8FoTew=; b=ZBPRveoxvU7V3dJkedjt5LP3+vqEhLSVYOrBO/5WWvk3AKF/7rLYmC9oTgFJl+HaJz 2IOjIbDPiohxehTRFodwZk6tRGengCS6lEX4VC+HPx/+b1/5ENnZpDoobI+VMrb315rz oyM+XdO9yp5o6EUMM39TBEzGQu3RDvTNQk3BFVqL4+ZlPJuxmK2cng0sGFyYcg77M4Vs W32W7kCKEidnEzekwh0iLfReun/Lgi9pbEqWvXOs6Bm67HxZqjJ9aJvuj1Ck855wt3zt Z58PB+NI4QQo4jiXmccQGRgzb4a3/qg8GBAUmnermvUCyb3SYh7ZI2eDjyGsEFY33NHe zoWw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW/pteBS7ju2Vrgfubzs8XHD2dUWUAnXU40RWw6FKX1WpzPU/fp cbR27o6Ae6DO2K1aQfI8THW04Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwDKGSWS1TnWrym7jTm0Yjc6txyLmC1XATdlVnftbixDMdIVIiWhjfELCUcRhoCb9+SznndkQ== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:be8f:: with SMTP id n15mr2508855qvi.203.1552656972351; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 06:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:0:1004:1100:cca9:fccc:8667:9bdc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c12sm1119065qkb.86.2019.03.15.06.36.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 15 Mar 2019 06:36:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:36:10 -0400 From: Joel Fernandes To: Daniel Colascione Cc: Steven Rostedt , Sultan Alsawaf , Tim Murray , Michal Hocko , Suren Baghdasaryan , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Todd Kjos , Martijn Coenen , Christian Brauner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , "open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" , linux-mm , kernel-team Subject: Re: [RFC] simple_lmk: Introduce Simple Low Memory Killer for Android Message-ID: <20190315133610.GC3378@google.com> References: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 09:36:43PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: [snip] > > 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. The eBPF-based solution to this would be just as simple while avoiding any kernel changes. I don't know why you think it is not load-bearing. However, I agree the proc/pidfd approach is better and can be simpler for some users who don't want to deal with eBPF - especially since something like this has many usecases. I was just suggesting the eBPF solution as a better alternative to the task_struct surgery idea from Sultan since that sounded to me quite hackish (that could just be my opinion). > 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. > > 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. Agreed. Looking forward to the patches. :) thanks, - Joel