[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110926182859.GA22434@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:28:59 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] oom: do not live lock on frozen tasks
On Mon 26-09-11 17:51:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, September 26, 2011, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > From f935ed4558c2fb033ef5c14e02b28e12a615f80e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> > Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:23:15 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] oom: do not live lock on frozen tasks
> >
> > Konstantin Khlebnikov has reported (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/23/45)
> > that OOM can end up in a live lock if select_bad_process picks up a frozen
> > task.
> > Unfortunately we cannot mark such processes as unkillable to ignore them
> > because we could panic the system even though there is a chance that
> > somebody could thaw the process so we can make a forward process (e.g. a
> > process from another cpuset or with a different nodemask).
> >
> > Let's thaw an OOM selected frozen process right after we've sent fatal
> > signal from oom_kill_task.
> > Thawing is safe if the frozen task doesn't access any suspended device
> > (e.g. by ioctl) on the way out to the userspace where we handle the
> > signal and die. Note, we are not interested in the kernel threads because
> > they are not oom killable.
> >
> > Accessing suspended devices by a userspace processes shouldn't be an
> > issue because devices are suspended only after userspace is already
> > frozen and oom is disabled at that time.
> >
> > run_guest (drivers/lguest/core.c) calls try_to_freeze with an user
> > context but it seems it is able to cope with signals because it
> > explicitly checks for pending signals so we should be safe.
> >
> > Other than that userspace accesses the fridge only from the
> > signal handling routines so we are able to handle SIGKILL without any
> > negative side effects.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> > Reported-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
>
> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
Thanks.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
--
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