linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:44:59 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
cc:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote:

> In other instances, It can actually also kill some innocent tasks unless the 
> administrator tunes oom_adj, say something like kvm which would have a huge 
> memory accounted, but might be from a different node altogether. Killing a 
> single vm is killing all of the processes in that OS ;)  Don't you think this 
> has to be fixed^Wimproved?
> 

As previously stated, I think the heuristic to penalize tasks for not 
having an intersection with the set of allowable nodes of the oom 
triggering task could be made slightly more severe.  That's irrelevant to 
your patch, though.

> > That's my objection to the proposal: it doesn't behave appropriately for
> > both global unconstrained ooms and cpuset-constrained ooms at the same
> > time.
> >
> 
> So you are against specifying order when it is a cpuset-constrained oom. Here 
> is a revised version of the patch which adds oom.cpuset_constraint, when set 
> to 1 would disable the ordering imposed by this controller for cpuset 
> constrained ooms! Will this work for you?
> 

No, I don't think it's appropriate to add special exemptions for specific 
subsystems to what should be a generic cgroup.  I think it is much more 
powerful to defer these decisions to userspace so each cgroup can attach 
its own handler and implement the necessary decision-making that the 
kernel could never perfectly handle for all possible workloads.

It is trivial to implement the equivalent of this particular change as a 
userspace handler to SIGKILL all tasks in a specific cgroup when the 
cgroup oom handler is woken up at the time of oom.  Additionally, it could 
also respond in other ways such as adding a node to a cpuset, killing a 
less important cgroup, elevate a memory controller limit, send a signal to 
your application to release memory, etc.

We also talked about a cgroup /dev/mem_notify device file that you can 
poll() and learn of low memory situations so that appropriate action can 
be taken even in lowmem situations as opposed to simply oom conditions.

These types of policy decisions belong in userspace.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/