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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0901271223280.21124@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:29:20 -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,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote:

> > That's certainly idealistic, but cannot be done in an inexpensive way that
> > would scale with the large systems that clients of cpusets typically use.
> 
> If we kill only the tasks for which cpuset_mems_allowed_intersects() is true 
> on the first pass and even then if we do not get out of oom, we could go over 
> again with this expensive check.

The oom killer has no memory of previous kills, so it's not possible to 
determine if there've been a series of recent needless ones.  Subsequent 
oom conditions should still check for intersection and, since it's only a 
heuristic, a large memory-hogging task will eventually be killed if there 
are no tasks remaining with such an intersection.

I don't know how you're planning on mapping large memory allocations on 
nodes of interest back to specific tasks, however.  Do you have a 
proposal?

> Using this scheme, could kill more no of 
> tasks than required, if a task with lots of memory has moved to a different 
> cpuset.

That's rare, since cpusets are used for NUMA optimizations and a set of 
cpus has a static affinity to certain memory.  It could happen if a 
cpuset's set of allowable nodes is made to be smaller, but that seems like 
it would trigger the oom in the first place and would encourage killing 
tasks with an intersection.
--
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/