linux-kernel - Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with nodemask v4.2

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:	Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:09:13 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with
 nodemask v4.2

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:57:53 -0800 (PST)
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> 
> > > That's not at all what I said.  I said using total_vm as a baseline allows 
> > > users to define when a process is to be considered "rogue," that is, using 
> > > more memory than expected.  Using rss would be inappropriate since it is 
> > > highly dynamic and depends on the state of the VM at the time of oom, 
> > > which userspace cannot possibly keep updated.
> > > 
> > > You consistently ignore that point: the power of /proc/pid/oom_adj to 
> > > influence when a process, such as a memory leaker, is to be considered as 
> > > a high priority for an oom kill.  It has absolutely nothing to do with 
> > > fake NUMA, cpusets, or memcg.
> > > 
> > You also ignore that it's not sane to use oom kill for resource control ;)
> > 
> 
> Please read my email.  Did I say anything about resource control AT ALL?  
> I said /proc/pid/oom_adj currently allows userspace to define when a task 
> is "rogue," meaning its consuming much more memory than expected.  Those 
> memory leakers should always be the optimal result for the oom killer to 
> kill.  Using rss as the baseline would not allow userspace to effectively 
> do the same thing since it's dynamic and depends on the state of the VM at 
> the time of oom which is probably not reflected in the /proc/pid/oom_adj 
> values for all tasks.  It has absolutely nothing to do with resource 
> control, so please address this very trivial issue without going off on 
> tangents.  Thanks.

What I can't undestand is the technique to know whether a (unknown) process is
leaking memory or not by checking vm_size.
And, why don't you use overcommit_memory when you can depends on vm_size ?

Thanks,
-Kame


--
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/