| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:37:01 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] oom: move oom_adj to signal_struct
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:03:23 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:55:16 +0900
> Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:51:31 +0900 (JST)
> > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:29:34 +0900 (JST)
> > > > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Kosaki.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am so late to invole this thread.
> > > > > > But let me have a question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What's advantage of placing oom_adj in singal rather than task ?
> > > > > > I mean task->oom_adj and task->signal->oom_adj ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am sorry if you already discussed it at last threads.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sorry. that's very good question.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm trying to explain the detailed intention of commit 2ff05b2b4eac
> > > > > (move oom_adj to mm_struct).
> > > > >
> > > > > In 2.6.30, OOM logic callflow is here.
> > > > >
> > > > > __out_of_memory
> > > > > select_bad_process for each task
> > > > > badness calculate badness of one task
> > > > > oom_kill_process search child
> > > > > oom_kill_task kill target task and mm shared tasks with it
> > > > >
> > > > > example, process-A have two thread, thread-A and thread-B and it
> > > > > have very fat memory.
> > > > > And, each thread have following likes oom property.
> > > > >
> > > > > thread-A: oom_adj = OOM_DISABLE, oom_score = 0
> > > > > thread-B: oom_adj = 0, oom_score = very-high
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, select_bad_process() select thread-B, but oom_kill_task refuse
> > > > > kill the task because thread-A have OOM_DISABLE.
> > > > > __out_of_memory() call select_bad_process() again. but select_bad_process()
> > > > > select the same task. It mean kernel fall in the livelock.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact is, select_bad_process() must select killable task. otherwise
> > > > > OOM logic go into livelock.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this enough explanation? thanks.
> > > > >
> >
> > The problem resulted from David patch.
> > It can solve live lock problem but make a new problem like vfork problem.
> > I think both can be solved by different approach.
> >
> > It's just RFC.
> >
> > If some process is selected by OOM killer but it have a child of OOM immune,
> > We just decrease point of process. It can affect selection of bad process.
> > After some trial, at last bad score is drastically low and another process is
> > selected by OOM killer. So I think Live lock don't happen.
> >
> > New variable adding in task struct is rather high cost.
> > But i think we can union it with oomkilladj
> > since oomkilladj is used to present just -17 ~ 15.
> >
> > What do you think about this approach ?
> >
> keeping this in "task" struct is troublesome.
> It may not livelock but near-to-livelock state, in bad case.
Hmm. I can't understand why it is troublesome.
I think it's related to moving oom_adj to singal_struct.
Unfortunately, I can't understand why we have to put oom_adj
in singal_struct?
That's why I have a question to Kosaki a while ago.
I can't understand it still. :-(
Could you elaborate it ?
> After applying Kosaki's , oom_kill will use
> "for_each_process()" instead of "do_each_thread", I think it's a way to go.
I didn't review kosaki's approach entirely.
After reviewing, let's discuss it, again.
> But, yes, your "scale_down" idea itself is interesitng.
> Then, hmm, merging two of yours ?
If it is possible, I will do so.
Thnaks for good comment, kame.
> Thanks,
> -Kame
>
>
>
> > ----
> >
> > This is based on 2.6.30 which is kernel before applying David Patch.
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > index b4c38bc..6e195f7 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > @@ -1150,6 +1150,11 @@ struct task_struct {
> > */
> > unsigned char fpu_counter;
> > s8 oomkilladj; /* OOM kill score adjustment (bit shift). */
> > + /*
> > + * If OOM kill happens at one process repeately,
> > + * oom_sacle_down will be increased to prevent OOM live lock
> > + */
> > + unsigned int oom_scale_down;
> > #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IO_TRACE
> > unsigned int btrace_seq;
> > #endif
> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > index a7b2460..3592786 100644
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -159,6 +159,11 @@ unsigned long badness(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long uptime)
> > points >>= -(p->oomkilladj);
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > + * adjust the score by number of OOM kill retrial
> > + */
> > + points >>= p->oom_scale_down;
> > +
> > #ifdef DEBUG
> > printk(KERN_DEBUG "OOMkill: task %d (%s) got %lu points\n",
> > p->pid, p->comm, points);
> > @@ -367,8 +372,10 @@ static int oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p)
> > * Don't kill the process if any threads are set to OOM_DISABLE
> > */
> > do_each_thread(g, q) {
> > - if (q->mm == mm && q->oomkilladj == OOM_DISABLE)
> > + if (q->mm == mm && q->oomkilladj == OOM_DISABLE) {
> > + p->oom_scale_down++;
> > return 1;
> > + }
> > } while_each_thread(g, q);
> >
> > __oom_kill_task(p, 1);
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Minchan Kim
> >
>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists