linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] oom-kill: give the dying task a higher priority

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:	Fri, 28 May 2010 15:38:24 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, williams@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] oom-kill: give the dying task a higher priority

> * KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> [2010-05-28 13:46:53]:
> 
> > > * Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lclaudio@...g.org> [2010-05-28 00:51:47]:
> > > 
> > > > @@ -382,6 +382,8 @@ static void dump_header(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> > > >   */
> > > >  static void __oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p, int verbose)
> > > >  {
> > > > +	struct sched_param param;
> > > > +
> > > >  	if (is_global_init(p)) {
> > > >  		WARN_ON(1);
> > > >  		printk(KERN_WARNING "tried to kill init!\n");
> > > > @@ -413,8 +415,9 @@ static void __oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p, int verbose)
> > > >  	 */
> > > >  	p->rt.time_slice = HZ;
> > > >  	set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
> > > > -
> > > >  	force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
> > > > +	param.sched_priority = MAX_RT_PRIO-1;
> > > > +	sched_setscheduler_nocheck(p, SCHED_FIFO, &param);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I would like to understand the visible benefits of this patch. Have
> > > you seen an OOM kill tasked really get bogged down. Should this task
> > > really be competing with other important tasks for run time?
> > 
> > What you mean important? Until OOM victim task exit completely, the system have no memory.
> > all of important task can't do anything.
> > 
> > In almost kernel subsystems, automatically priority boost is really bad idea because
> > it may break RT task's deterministic behavior. but OOM is one of exception. The deterministic
> > was alread broken by memory starvation.
> >
> 
> I am still not convinced, specially if we are running under mem
> cgroup. Even setting SCHED_FIFO does not help, you could have other
> things like cpusets that might restrict the CPUs you can run on, or
> any other policy and we could end up contending anyway with other
> SCHED_FIFO tasks.

Ah, right you are. I had missed mem-cgroup.
But I think memcgroup also don't need following two boost. Can we get rid of it?

	p->rt.time_slice = HZ;
	set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);


I mean we need distinguish global oom and memcg oom, perhapls. 


> > That's the reason I acked it.
> 
> If we could show faster recovery from OOM or anything else, I would be
> more convinced.






--
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/