linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] oom: don't kill random process

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4DDB11F4.2070903@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2011 11:03:32 +0900
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	rientjes@...gle.com
CC:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, caiqian@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, minchan.kim@...il.com,
	oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] oom: don't kill random process

(2011/05/24 10:58), David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
>>>>> This is unnecessary and just makes the oom killer egregiously long.  We
>>>>> are already diagnosing problems here at Google where the oom killer
>>>>> holds
>>>>> tasklist_lock on the readside for far too long, causing other cpus
>>>>> waiting
>>>>> for a write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) to encounter issues when irqs are
>>>>> disabled and it is spinning.  A second tasklist scan is simply a
>>>>> non-starter.
>>>>>
>>>>>     [ This is also one of the reasons why we needed to introduce
>>>>>       mm->oom_disable_count to prevent a second, expensive tasklist scan.
>>>>> ]
>>>>
>>>> You misunderstand the code. Both select_bad_process() and
>>>> oom_kill_process()
>>>> are under tasklist_lock(). IOW, no change lock holding time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A second iteration through the tasklist in select_bad_process() will
>>> extend the time that tasklist_lock is held, which is what your patch does.
>>
>> It never happen usual case. Plz think when happen all process score = 1.
>>
>
> I don't care if it happens in the usual case or extremely rare case.  It
> significantly increases the amount of time that tasklist_lock is held
> which causes writelock starvation on other cpus and causes issues,
> especially if the cpu being starved is updating the timer because it has
> irqs disabled, i.e. write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) usually in the clone or
> exit path.  We can do better than that, and that's why I proposed my patch
> to CAI that increases the resolution of the scoring and makes the root
> process bonus proportional to the amount of used memory.

Do I need to say the same word? Please read the code at first.



--
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/