[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1508241404380.32561@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 14:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
cc: mhocko@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...e.de,
hannes@...xchg.org, oleg@...hat.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm] mm, oom: add global access to memory reserves on
livelock
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Why can't we think about choosing more OOM victims instead of granting access
> to memory reserves?
>
We have no indication of which thread is holding a mutex that would need
to be killed, so we'd be randomly killing processes waiting for forward
progress. A worst-case scenario would be the thread is OOM_DISABLE and we
kill every process on the system needlessly. This problem obviously
occurs often enough that killing all userspace isnt going to be a viable
solution.
> Also, SysRq might not be usable under OOM because workqueues can get stuck.
> The panic_on_oom_timeout was first proposed using a workqueue but was
> updated to use a timer because there is no guarantee that workqueues work
> as expected under OOM.
>
I don't know anything about a panic_on_oom_timeout, but panicking would
only be a reasonable action if memory reserves were fully depleted. That
could easily be dealt with in the page allocator so there's no timeout
involved.
--
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