linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs access to memory reserves

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:	Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:28:04 -0500
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs
 access to memory reserves

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 04:22:18PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 
> > > The patch is drawing the line at "the kernel can no longer do anything to 
> > > free memory", and that's the line where userspace should be notified or a 
> > > process killed by the kernel.
> > >
> > > Giving current access to memory reserves in the oom killer is an
> > > optimization so that all reclaim is exhausted prior to declaring
> > > that they are necessary, the kernel still has the ability to allow
> > > that process to exit and free memory.
> > 
> > "they" are necessary?
> > 
> 
> Memory reserves.
> 
> > > This is the same as the oom notifiers within the kernel that free
> > > memory from s390 and powerpc archs: the kernel still has the ability
> > > to free memory.
> > 
> > They're not the same at all.  One is the kernel freeing memory, the
> > other is a random coincidence.
> > 
> 
> Current is on the way to memory freeing because it has a pending SIGKILL 
> or is already exiting, it simply needs access to memory reserves to do so.  
> This was originally introduced to prevent the oom killer from having to 
> scan the set of eligible processes and silently giving it access to memory 
> reserves; we didn't want to emit all of the messages to the kernel log 
> because scripts (and admins) were looking at the kernel log and seeing 
> that the oom killer killed something when it really came from a different 
> source or was already exiting.
> 
> We have a differing opinion on what to consider the point of oom (the 
> "notification line that has to be drawn").  My position is to notify 
> userspace when the kernel has exhausted its capability to free memory 
> without killing something.  In the case of current exiting or having a 
> pending SIGKILL, memory is going to be freed, the oom killer simply needs 
> to preempt the tasklist scan.  The situation is going to be remedied.  I 
> defined the notification with this patch to only happen when the kernel 
> can't free any memory without a kill so that userspace may do so itself.  
> Michal concurred with that position.

The long-standing, user-visible definition of the current line agrees
with me.  You can't just redefine this, period.

I tried to explain to you how insane the motivation for this patch is,
but it does not look like you are reading what I write.  But you don't
get to change user-visible behavior just like that anyway, much less
so without a sane reason, so this was a complete waste of time :-(
--
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/