[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201601302118.FIE60411.JVOFLtFFHOSQOM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 21:18:51 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org
Cc: rientjes@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...e.de,
hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/3] mm, oom: drop the last allocation attempt before out_of_memory
Michal Hocko wrote:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/25/40
> >
> > We could have out_of_memory() wait until the number of outstanding OOM
> > victims drops to 0. Then __alloc_pages_may_oom() doesn't relinquish
> > the lock until its kill has been finalized:
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > index 914451a..4dc5b9d 100644
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -892,7 +892,9 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> > * Give the killed process a good chance to exit before trying
> > * to allocate memory again.
> > */
> > - schedule_timeout_killable(1);
> > + if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
> > + wait_event_timeout(oom_victims_wait,
> > + !atomic_read(&oom_victims), HZ);
> > }
> > return true;
> > }
>
> Yes this makes sense to me
I think schedule_timeout_killable(1) was used for handling cases
where current thread did not get TIF_MEMDIE but got SIGKILL due to
sharing the victim's memory. If current thread is blocking TIF_MEMDIE
thread, this can become a needless delay.
Also, I don't know whether using wait_event_*() helps handling a
problem that schedule_timeout_killable(1) can sleep for many minutes
with oom_lock held when there are a lot of tasks. Detail is explained
in my proposed patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists