linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4

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: <201512282313.DHE87075.OSLJOFOtMVQHFF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:	Mon, 28 Dec 2015 23:13:31 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	mhocko@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...e.de,
	rientjes@...gle.com, hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4

Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > I got OOM killers while running heavy disk I/O (extracting kernel source,
> > running lxr's genxref command). (Environ: 4 CPUs / 2048MB RAM / no swap / XFS)
> > Do you think these OOM killers reasonable? Too weak against fragmentation?
>
> Since I cannot establish workload that caused December 24's natural OOM
> killers, I used the following stressor for generating similar situation.
>

I came to feel that I am observing a different problem which is currently
hidden behind the "too small to fail" memory-allocation rule. That is, tasks
requesting order > 0 pages are continuously losing the competition when
tasks requesting order = 0 pages dominate, for reclaimed pages are stolen
by tasks requesting order = 0 pages before reclaimed pages are combined to
order > 0 pages (or maybe order > 0 pages are immediately split into
order = 0 pages due to tasks requesting order = 0 pages).

Currently, order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER allocations implicitly retry
unless chosen by the OOM killer. Therefore, even if tasks requesting
order = 2 pages lost the competition when there are tasks requesting
order = 0 pages, the order = 2 allocation request is implicitly retried
and therefore the OOM killer is not invoked (though there is a problem that
tasks requesting order > 0 allocation will stall as long as tasks requesting
order = 0 pages dominate).

But this patchset introduced a limit of 16 retries. Thus, if tasks requesting
order = 2 pages lost the competition for 16 times due to tasks requesting
order = 0 pages, tasks requesting order = 2 pages invoke the OOM killer.
To avoid the OOM killer, we need to make sure that pages reclaimed for
order > 0 allocations will not be stolen by tasks requesting order = 0
allocations.

Is my feeling plausible?
--
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/