linux-kernel - Re: [patch -mm 4/9 v2] oom: remove compulsory panic_on

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, 17 Feb 2010 11:34:30 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@...e.cz>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm 4/9 v2] oom: remove compulsory panic_on_oom mode

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:28:05 -0800 (PST)
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> 
> > > What do you think about making pagefaults use out_of_memory() directly and 
> > > respecting the sysctl_panic_on_oom settings?
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't think this patch is good. Because several memcg can
> > cause oom at the same time independently, system-wide oom locking is
> > unsuitable. BTW, what I doubt is much more fundamental thing.
> > 
> 
> We want to lock all populated zones with ZONE_OOM_LOCKED to avoid 
> needlessly killing more than one task regardless of how many memcgs are 
> oom.
> 
Current implentation archive what memcg want. Why remove and destroy memcg ?


> > What I doubt at most is "why VM_FAULT_OOM is necessary ? or why we have
> > to call oom_killer when page fault returns it".
> > Is there someone who returns VM_FAULT_OOM without calling page allocator
> > and oom-killer helps something in such situation ?
> > 
> 
> Before we invoked the oom killer for VM_FAULT_OOM, we simply sent a 
> SIGKILL to current because we simply don't have memory to fault the page 
> in, it's better to select a memory-hogging task to kill based on badness() 
> than to constantly kill current which may not help in the long term.
> 
What I mean is
 - What VM_FAULT_OOM means is not "memory is exhausted" but "something is exhausted".

For example, when hugepages are all used, it may return VM_FAULT_OOM.
Especially when nr_overcommit_hugepage == usage_of_hugepage, it returns VM_FAULT_OOM.

Then, what oom-killer can help it ? I think never and the requester should die.

Before modifying current code, I think we have to check all VM_FAULT_OOM and distinguish
 - memory is exhausted (and page allocater wasn't called.)
 - something other than memory is exhausted.

And, in hugepage case, even order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER, oom-killer is
called and pagegault_oom_kill kills tasks randomly.

Thanks,
-Kame

--
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/