linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] oom-kill: give the dying task a higher priority

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:	Thu, 3 Jun 2010 09:52:49 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, williams@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] oom-kill: give the dying task a higher priority

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:36 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>
>> > > > @@ -291,9 +309,10 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned long *ppoints,
>> > > >                  * Otherwise we could get an easy OOM deadlock.
>> > > >                  */
>> > > >                 if (p->flags & PF_EXITING) {
>> > > > -                       if (p != current)
>> > > > +                       if (p != current) {
>> > > > +                               boost_dying_task_prio(p, mem);
>> > > >                                 return ERR_PTR(-1UL);
>> > > > -
>> > > > +                       }
>> > > >                         chosen = p;
>> > > >                         *ppoints = ULONG_MAX;
>> > > >                 }
>> > >
>> > > This has the potential to actually make it harder to free memory if p is
>> > > waiting to acquire a writelock on mm->mmap_sem in the exit path while the
>> > > thread holding mm->mmap_sem is trying to run.
>> >
>> > if p is waiting, changing prio have no effect. It continue tol wait to release mmap_sem.
>> >
>>
>> And that can reduce the runtime of the thread holding a writelock on
>> mm->mmap_sem, making the exit actually take longer than without the patch
>> if its priority is significantly higher, especially on smaller machines.
>
> If p need mmap_sem, p is going to sleep to wait mmap_sem. if p doesn't,
> quickly exit is good thing. In other word, task fairness is not our goal
> when oom occur.
>

Tend to agree. I didn't agree boosting of whole threads' priority.

Task fairness VS system hang is trade off. task fairness is best
effort but system hang is critical.
Also, we have tried to it.

        /*
         * We give our sacrificial lamb high priority and access to
         * all the memory it needs. That way it should be able to
         * exit() and clear out its resources quickly...
         */
        p->rt.time_slice = HZ;
        set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);

But I think above code is meaningless unless p use SCHED_RR.
So boosting of lowest RT priority with FIFO is to meet above comment's
goal, I think.

-- 
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/