| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20090805150017.5BB9.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:04:48 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.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 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 ?
I can ack this. but please re-initialize oom_scale_down at fork and
exec time.
currently oom_scale_down makes too big affect.
and, May I ask which you hate my approach?
>
> ----
>
> 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
> --
> 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/
--
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