| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <BANLkTim2-uncnzoHwdG+4+uCv+Ht4YH3Qw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 12:59:35 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, caiqian@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
hughd@...gle.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] oom: oom-killer don't use proportion of system-ram internally
2011/5/20 KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>:
> CAI Qian reported his kernel did hang-up if he ran fork intensive
> workload and then invoke oom-killer.
>
> The problem is, current oom calculation uses 0-1000 normalized value
> (The unit is a permillage of system-ram). Its low precision make
> a lot of same oom score. IOW, in his case, all processes have smaller
> oom score than 1 and internal calculation round it to 1.
>
> Thus oom-killer kill ineligible process. This regression is caused by
> commit a63d83f427 (oom: badness heuristic rewrite).
>
> The solution is, the internal calculation just use number of pages
> instead of permillage of system-ram. And convert it to permillage
> value at displaying time.
>
> This patch doesn't change any ABI (included /proc/<pid>/oom_score_adj)
> even though current logic has a lot of my dislike thing.
>
> Reported-by: CAI Qian <caiqian@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> fs/proc/base.c | 13 ++++++----
> include/linux/oom.h | 7 +----
> mm/oom_kill.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index dfa5327..d6b0424 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -476,14 +476,17 @@ static const struct file_operations proc_lstats_operations = {
>
> static int proc_oom_score(struct task_struct *task, char *buffer)
> {
> - unsigned long points = 0;
> + unsigned long points;
> + unsigned long ratio = 0;
> + unsigned long totalpages = totalram_pages + total_swap_pages + 1;
Does we need +1?
oom_badness does have the check.
>
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> - if (pid_alive(task))
> - points = oom_badness(task, NULL, NULL,
> - totalram_pages + total_swap_pages);
> + if (pid_alive(task)) {
> + points = oom_badness(task, NULL, NULL, totalpages);
> + ratio = points * 1000 / totalpages;
> + }
> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> - return sprintf(buffer, "%lu\n", points);
> + return sprintf(buffer, "%lu\n", ratio);
> }
>
> struct limit_names {
> diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h
> index 5e3aa83..0f5b588 100644
> --- a/include/linux/oom.h
> +++ b/include/linux/oom.h
> @@ -40,7 +40,8 @@ enum oom_constraint {
> CONSTRAINT_MEMCG,
> };
>
> -extern unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> +/* The badness from the OOM killer */
> +extern unsigned long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> const nodemask_t *nodemask, unsigned long totalpages);
> extern int try_set_zonelist_oom(struct zonelist *zonelist, gfp_t gfp_flags);
> extern void clear_zonelist_oom(struct zonelist *zonelist, gfp_t gfp_flags);
> @@ -62,10 +63,6 @@ static inline void oom_killer_enable(void)
> oom_killer_disabled = false;
> }
>
> -/* The badness from the OOM killer */
> -extern unsigned long badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> - const nodemask_t *nodemask, unsigned long uptime);
> -
> extern struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(struct task_struct *p);
>
> /* sysctls */
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index e6a6c6f..8bbc3df 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -132,10 +132,12 @@ static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p,
> * predictable as possible. The goal is to return the highest value for the
> * task consuming the most memory to avoid subsequent oom failures.
> */
> -unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> +unsigned long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> const nodemask_t *nodemask, unsigned long totalpages)
> {
> - int points;
> + unsigned long points;
> + unsigned long score_adj = 0;
> +
>
> if (oom_unkillable_task(p, mem, nodemask))
> return 0;
> @@ -160,7 +162,7 @@ unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> */
> if (p->flags & PF_OOM_ORIGIN) {
> task_unlock(p);
> - return 1000;
> + return ULONG_MAX;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -176,33 +178,49 @@ unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> */
> points = get_mm_rss(p->mm) + p->mm->nr_ptes;
> points += get_mm_counter(p->mm, MM_SWAPENTS);
> -
> - points *= 1000;
> - points /= totalpages;
> task_unlock(p);
>
> /*
> * Root processes get 3% bonus, just like the __vm_enough_memory()
> * implementation used by LSMs.
> + *
> + * XXX: Too large bonus, example, if the system have tera-bytes memory..
> */
> - if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> - points -= 30;
> + if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
> + if (points >= totalpages / 32)
> + points -= totalpages / 32;
> + else
> + points = 0;
Odd. Why do we initialize points with 0?
I think the idea is good.
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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