[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101124110915.GA20452@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:09:15 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, pageexec@...email.hu,
Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>,
Eugene Teo <eteo@...hat.com>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH 4/4] oom: don't ignore rss in nascent mm
On 11/24, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> > On 10/25, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > >
> > > Because execve() makes new mm struct and setup stack and
> > > copy argv. It mean the task have two mm while execve() temporary.
> > > Unfortunately this nascent mm is not pointed any tasks, then
> > > OOM-killer can't detect this memory usage. therefore OOM-killer
> > > may kill incorrect task.
> > >
> > > Thus, this patch added signal->in_exec_mm member and track
> > > nascent mm usage.
> >
> > Stupid question.
> >
> > Can't we just account these allocations in the old -mm temporary?
> >
> > IOW. Please look at the "patch" below. It is of course incomplete
> > and wrong (to the point inc_mm_counter() is not safe without
> > SPLIT_RSS_COUNTING), and copy_strings/flush_old_exec are not the
> > best places to play with mm-counters, just to explain what I mean.
> >
> > It is very simple. copy_strings() increments MM_ANONPAGES every
> > time we add a new page into bprm->vma. This makes this memory
> > visible to select_bad_process().
> >
> > When exec changes ->mm (or if it fails), we change MM_ANONPAGES
> > counter back.
> >
> > Most probably I missed something, but what do you think?
>
> Because, If the pages of argv is swapping out when processing execve,
> This accouing doesn't work.
Why?
If copy_strings() inserts the new page into bprm->vma and then
this page is swapped out, inc_mm_counter(current->mm, MM_ANONPAGES)
becomes incorrect, yes. And we can't turn it into MM_SWAPENTS.
But does this really matter? oom_badness() counts MM_ANONPAGES +
MM_SWAPENTS, and result is the same.
> Is this enough explanation? Please don't hesitate say "no". If people
> don't like my approach, I don't hesitate change my thinking.
Well, certainly I can't say no ;)
But it would be nice to find a more simple fix (if it can work,
of course).
And. I need a simple solution for the older kernels.
Oleg.
--
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