[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130911190605.5528ee4563272dbea1ed56a6@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:06:05 +0400
From: Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@...il.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@...bao.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] OOM killer: wait for tasks with pending SIGKILL to exit
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> > /*
> > * If this task is not being ptraced on exit, then wait for it
> > * to finish before killing some other task unnecessarily.
> > */
> > - if (!(task->group_leader->ptrace & PT_TRACE_EXIT))
> > + if (!(task->group_leader->ptrace & PT_TRACE_EXIT)) {
> > + set_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_MEMDIE);
>
> This does not, we do not give access to memory reserves unless the process
> needs it to allocate memory. The task here, which is not current, can
> call into the oom killer and be granted memory reserves if necessary.
True. However, why TIF_MEMDIE is set for PF_EXITING task in oom_kill_process()
then?
Also, setting TIF_MEMDIE will avoid direct reclaim and memory allocation should
be fast if exiting task needs it.
> > @@ -412,16 +415,6 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> > static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(oom_rs, DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL,
> > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST);
> >
> > - /*
> > - * If the task is already exiting, don't alarm the sysadmin or kill
> > - * its children or threads, just set TIF_MEMDIE so it can die quickly
> > - */
> > - if (p->flags & PF_EXITING) {
> > - set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
> > - put_task_struct(p);
> > - return;
> > - }
>
> I think you misunderstood the point of this; if a selected process is
> already in the exit path then this is simply avoiding dumping oom kill
> lines to the kernel log. We want to keep doing that.
This happens in oom_kill_process() after victim has been selected by
select_bad_process(). But there is already PF_EXITING check in
oom_scan_process_thread() and in this case OOM code won't call oom_kill_process.
There is only a slight chance that victim will become PF_EXITING between
scan and kill.
The only difference is in force_kill flag, and the only case where it's set
is SysRq. And I think in this case OOM killer messages are a good thing to have
even when victim is already exiting, instead of just silence.
--
Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@...il.com>
--
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