From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com,
yuzhoujian@didichuxing.com, jrdr.linux@gmail.com, guro@fb.com,
hannes@cmpxchg.org, penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp,
ebiederm@xmission.com, shakeelb@google.com, christian@brauner.io,
minchan@kernel.org, timmurray@google.com, dancol@google.com,
joel@joelfernandes.org, jannh@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] signal: extend pidfd_send_signal() to allow expedited process killing
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:53:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190412065314.GC13373@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190411153313.GE22763@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Thu 11-04-19 08:33:13, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 06:43:53PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > Add new SS_EXPEDITE flag to be used when sending SIGKILL via
> > pidfd_send_signal() syscall to allow expedited memory reclaim of the
> > victim process. The usage of this flag is currently limited to SIGKILL
> > signal and only to privileged users.
>
> What is the downside of doing expedited memory reclaim? ie why not do it
> every time a process is going to die?
Well, you are tearing down an address space which might be still in use
because the task not fully dead yeat. So there are two downsides AFAICS.
Core dumping which will not see the reaped memory so the resulting
coredump might be incomplete. And unexpected #PF/gup on the reaped
memory will result in SIGBUS. These are things that we have closed our
eyes in the oom context because they likely do not matter. If we want to
use the same technique for other usecases then we have to think how much
that matter again.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-12 6:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-11 1:43 [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 1:43 ` [RFC 1/2] mm: oom: expose expedite_reclaim to use oom_reaper outside of oom_kill.c Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-25 21:12 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-04-25 21:56 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 1:43 ` [RFC 2/2] signal: extend pidfd_send_signal() to allow expedited process killing Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 10:30 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-11 10:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-11 15:18 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 15:23 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 16:25 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-11 15:33 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-04-11 17:05 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-04-11 17:09 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 17:33 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-11 17:36 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-04-11 17:47 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-12 6:49 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-12 14:15 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-12 14:20 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-12 21:03 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-04-11 17:52 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 21:45 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-04-11 21:59 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-12 6:53 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2019-04-12 14:10 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-12 14:14 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-12 15:30 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-25 16:09 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 10:51 ` [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 16:18 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-11 18:12 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 19:14 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-11 20:11 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 21:11 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-11 16:20 ` Sandeep Patil
2019-04-11 16:47 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 18:19 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 19:56 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 20:17 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 17:19 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-04-11 11:51 ` [Lsf-pc] " Rik van Riel
2019-04-11 12:16 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 16:54 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
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=20190412065314.GC13373@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=dancol@google.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=jrdr.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=timmurray@google.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yuzhoujian@didichuxing.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).