linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ringbuffer: Don't choose the process with adj equal OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:32:36 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGWkznEuGCZq600XjCtp3hzgN2LrCgwSAfoLwQR7jTw5p=qHoQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGWkznEhy7Fard=6E3X_qUezXd33RdKV9CVeONWL=6EQ1bokEw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:56:01 +0800
>> Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >>
>>> >>         if (oom_task_origin(task)) {
>>> >>                 points = ULONG_MAX;
>>> >>                 goto select;
>>> >>         }
>>> >>
>>> >>         points = oom_badness(task, NULL, oc->nodemask, oc->totalpages);
>>> >>         if (!points || points < oc->chosen_points)
>>> >>                 goto next;
>>> >
>>> > And what's wrong with that?
>>> >
>>> > -- Steve
>>> I think the original thought of OOM is the flag 'OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN' is
>>> most likely to be set by process himself via accessing the proc file,
>>> if it does so, OOM can select it as the victim. except, it is
>>> reluctant to choose the critical process to be killed, so I suggest
>>> not to set such heavy flag as OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN on behalf of -1000
>>> process.
>>
>> Really, I don't think tasks that are setting OOM_CORE_ADJ_MIN should be
>> allocating a lot of memory in the kernel (via ring buffer). It sounds
>> like a good way to wreck havoc on the system.
>>
>> It's basically saying, "I'm going to take up all memory, but don't kill
>> me, just kill some random user on the system".
>>
>> -- Steve
> Sure, but the memory status is dynamic, the process could also exceed the limit
> at the moment even it check the available memory before. We have to
> add protection
> for such kind of risk. It could also happen that the critical process
> be preempted by
> another huge memory allocating process, which may cause insufficient memory when
> it schedule back.

For bellowing scenario, process A have no intension to exhaust the
memory, but will be likely to be selected by OOM for we set
OOM_CORE_ADJ_MIN for it.
process A(-1000)                                          process B

  i = si_mem_available();
       if (i < nr_pages)
           return -ENOMEM;
                                                   schedule
                                                --------------->
allocate huge memory
                                                <-------------
if (user_thread)
  set_current_oom_origin();

  for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
         bpage = kzalloc_node

  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-10  2:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-08  2:16 [PATCH v1] ringbuffer: Don't choose the process with adj equal OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN Zhaoyang Huang
2018-04-08  3:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-08  5:54   ` Zhaoyang Huang
2018-04-08 12:47     ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-09  0:56       ` Zhaoyang Huang
2018-04-09 13:49         ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-10  0:32           ` Zhaoyang Huang
2018-04-10  2:32             ` Zhaoyang Huang [this message]
2018-04-10  3:12               ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-10  3:41                 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2018-04-10  6:14                   ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-10  6:39                     ` Zhaoyang Huang
2018-04-10  7:49                       ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-10  8:04                         ` Zhaoyang Huang
2018-04-10  8:12                           ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-10  8:38                             ` Zhaoyang Huang
2018-04-10  9:01                               ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-10  9:32                                 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2018-04-10  9:51                                   ` Zhaoyang Huang
2018-04-10 10:49                                   ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-10 12:23                                     ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-10 12:27                                       ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-10 12:36                                         ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-10 13:13                                           ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-10 13:14                                             ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-10 16:45                                             ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-10 18:00                                               ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-10 18:39                                                 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-10 19:05                                                   ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-11  7:48                                                   ` Zhaoyang Huang

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='CAGWkznEuGCZq600XjCtp3hzgN2LrCgwSAfoLwQR7jTw5p=qHoQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=huangzhaoyang@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    /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).