linux-kernel - Re: [patch] mm, memcg: add oom killer delay

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306191429340.13015@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, memcg: add oom killer delay

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, David Rientjes wrote:

> Even with all of the above (which is not actually that invasive of a 
> patch), I still think we need memory.oom_delay_millisecs.  I probably made 
> a mistake in describing what that is addressing if it seems like it's 
> trying to address any of the above.
> 
> If a userspace oom handler fails to respond even with access to those 
> "memcg reserves", the kernel needs to kill within that memcg.  Do we do 
> that above a set time period (this patch) or when the reserves are 
> completely exhausted?  That's debatable, but if we are to allow it for 
> global oom conditions as well then my opinion was to make it as safe as 
> possible; today, we can't disable the global oom killer from userspace and 
> I don't think we should ever allow it to be disabled.  I think we should 
> allow userspace a reasonable amount of time to respond and then kill if it 
> is exceeded.
> 
> For the global oom case, we want to have a priority-based memcg selection.  
> Select the lowest priority top-level memcg and kill within it.  If it has 
> an oom notifier, send it a signal to kill something.  If it fails to 
> react, kill something after memory.oom_delay_millisecs has elapsed.  If 
> there isn't a userspace oom notifier, kill something within that lowest 
> priority memcg.
> 
> The bottomline with my approach is that I don't believe there is ever a 
> reason for an oom memcg to remain oom indefinitely.  That's why I hate 
> memory.oom_control == 1 and I think for the global notification it would 
> be deemed a nonstarter since you couldn't even login to the machine.
> 

What's the status of this patch?  I'd love to be able to introduce memcg 
reserves so that userspace oom notifications can actually work, but we 
still require a failsafe in the kernel if those reserves are depleted or 
userspace cannot respond.
--
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/