linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] memcg: page fault oom improvement

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: <20100223151225.e7fdadc5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:12:25 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	rientjes@...gle.com, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] memcg: page fault oom improvement

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:40:20 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2010-02-23 12:03:15]:
> 
> > Nishimura-san, could you review and test your extreme test case with this ?
> > 
> > ==
> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > 
> > Now, because of page_fault_oom_kill, returning VM_FAULT_OOM means
> > random oom-killer should be called. Considering memcg, it handles
> > OOM-kill in its own logic, there was a problem as "oom-killer called
> > twice" problem.
> > 
> > By commit a636b327f731143ccc544b966cfd8de6cb6d72c6, I added a check
> > in pagefault_oom_killer shouldn't kill some (random) task if
> > memcg's oom-killer already killed anyone.
> > That was done by comapring current jiffies and last oom jiffies of memcg.
> > 
> > I thought that easy fix was enough, but Nishimura could write a test case
> > where checking jiffies is not enough. So, my fix was not enough.
> > This is a fix of above commit.
> > 
> > This new one does this.
> >  * memcg's try_charge() never returns -ENOMEM if oom-killer is allowed.
> >  * If someone is calling oom-killer, wait for it in try_charge().
> >  * If TIF_MEMDIE is set as a result of try_charge(), return 0 and
> >    allow process to make progress (and die.) 
> >  * removed hook in pagefault_out_of_memory.
> > 
> > By this, pagefult_out_of_memory will be never called if memcg's oom-killer
> > is called and scattered codes are now in memcg's charge logic again.
> > 
> > TODO:
> >  If __GFP_WAIT is not specified in gfp_mask flag, VM_FAULT_OOM will return
> >  anyway. We need to investigate it whether there is a case.
> > 
> > Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
> > Cc: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> 
> I've not reviewed David's latest OOM killer changes. Are these changes based on top of
> what is going to come in with David's proposal?

About this change. no. This is an independent patch.
But through these a few month work, I(we) noticed page_fault_out_of_memory() is
dangerous and VM_FALUT_OOM should not be returned as much as possible.
About memcg, it's not necessary to return VM_FAULT_OOM when we know oom-killer
is called.

This fix itself is straightforward. But difficult thing here is test case, I think.

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/