[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1412051546200.2537@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:46:38 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] oom: don't assume that a coredumping thread will
exit soon
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> oom_kill.c assumes that PF_EXITING task should exit and free the memory
> soon. This is wrong in many ways and one important case is the coredump.
> A task can sleep in exit_mm() "forever" while the coredumping sub-thread
> can need more memory.
>
> Change the PF_EXITING checks to take SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP into account,
> we add the new trivial helper for that.
>
> Note: this is only the first step, this patch doesn't try to solve other
> problems. The SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP check is obviously racy, a task can
> participate in coredump after it was already observed in PF_EXITING state,
> so TIF_MEMDIE (which also blocks oom-killer) still can be wrongly set.
> fatal_signal_pending() can be true because of SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP so
> out_of_memory() and mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() shouldn't blindly trust it.
> And even the name/usage of the new helper is confusing, an exiting thread
> can only free its ->mm if it is the only/last task in thread group.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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