linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] panic_on_oom

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: <20150611141813.GA14088@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:18:13 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, rientjes@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
	tj@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] panic_on_oom_timeout

On Thu 11-06-15 22:12:40, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > > The moom_work used by SysRq-f sometimes cannot be executed
> > > because some work which is processed before the moom_work is processed is
> > > stalled for unbounded amount of time due to looping inside the memory
> > > allocator.
> > 
> > Wouldn't wq code pick up another worker thread to execute the work.
> > There is also a rescuer thread as the last resort AFAIR.
> > 
> 
> Below is an example of moom_work lockup in v4.1-rc7 from
> http://I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/tmp/serial-20150611.txt.xz
> 
> ----------
> [  171.710406] sysrq: SysRq : Manual OOM execution
> [  171.720193] kworker/2:9 invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0, order=0, oom_score_adj=0
> [  171.722699] kworker/2:9 cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0
> [  171.724603] CPU: 2 PID: 11016 Comm: kworker/2:9 Not tainted 4.1.0-rc7 #3
> [  171.726817] Hardware name: VMware, Inc. VMware Virtual Platform/440BX Desktop Reference Platform, BIOS 6.00 07/31/2013
> [  171.729727] Workqueue: events moom_callback
> (...snipped...)
> [  258.302016] sysrq: SysRq : Manual OOM execution

Wow, this is a _lot_. I was aware that workqueues might be overloaded.
We have seen that in real loads and that led to
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=141456398425553 wher the rescuer
didn't handle pending work properly. I thought that the fix helped in
the end. But 1.5 minutes is indeed unexpected for me.

This of course disqualifies DELAYED_WORK for anything that has at least
reasonable time expectations which is the case here.

[...]

> I think that the basic rule for handling OOM condition is that "Do not trust
> anybody, for even the kswapd and rescuer threads can be waiting for lock or
> allocation. Decide when to give up at administrator's own risk, and choose
> another mm struct or call panic()".

Yes I agree with this and checking the timeout at select_bad_process
time sounds much more plausible in that regard.

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/