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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0912171412280.4089@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:21:49 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	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 Tue, 15 Dec 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> > A few requirements that I have:
> 
> Um, good analysis! really.
> 
> >
> >  - we must be able to define when a task is a memory hogger; this is
> >    currently done by /proc/pid/oom_adj relying on the overall total_vm
> >    size of the task as a baseline.  Most users should have a good sense
> >    of when their task is using more memory than expected and killing a
> >    memory leaker should always be the optimal oom killer result.  A better 
> >    set of units other than a shift on total_vm would be helpful, though.
> 
> nit: What's mean "Most users"? desktop user(one of most majority users)
> don't have any expection of memory usage.
> 
> but, if admin have memory expection, they should be able to tune
> optimal oom result.
> 
> I think you pointed right thing.
> 

This is mostly referring to production server users where memory 
consumption by particular applications can be estimated, which allows the 
kernel to determine when a task is using a wildly unexpected amount that 
happens to become egregious enough to force the oom killer into killing a 
task.

That is contrast to using rss as a baseline where we prefer on killing the 
application with the most resident RAM.  It is not always ideal to kill a 
task with 8GB of rss when we fail to allocate a single page for a low 
priority task.

> >  - we must prefer tasks that run on a cpuset or mempolicy's nodes if the 
> >    oom condition is constrained by that cpuset or mempolicy and its not a
> >    system-wide issue.
> 
> agreed. (who disagree it?)
> 

It's possible to nullify the current penalization in the badness heuristic 
(order 3 reduction) if a candidate task does not share nodes with 
current's allowed set either by way of cpusets or mempolicies.  For 
example, an oom caused by an application with an MPOL_BIND on a single 
node can easily kill a task that has no memory resident on that node if 
its usage (or rss) is 3 orders higher than any candidate that is allowed 
on my bound node.

> >  - we must be able to polarize the badness heuristic to always select a
> >    particular task is if its very low priority or disable oom killing for
> >    a task if its must-run.
> 
> Probably I haven't catch your point. What's mean "polarize"? Can you
> please describe more?
> 

We need to be able to polarize tasks so they are always killed regardless 
of any kernel heuristic (/proc/pid/oom_adj of +15, currently) or always 
chosen last (-16, currently).  We also need a way of completely disabling 
oom killing for certain tasks such as with OOM_DISABLE.
--
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/