linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5729AEFB.9060101@suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 4 May 2016 10:12:43 +0200
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On 05/04/2016 07:45 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> I still don't agree with some part of this patchset that deal with
> !costly order. As you know, there was two regression reports from Hugh
> and Aaron and you fixed them by ensuring to trigger compaction. I
> think that these show the problem of this patchset. Previous kernel
> doesn't need to ensure to trigger compaction and just works fine in
> any case.

IIRC previous kernel somehow subtly never OOM'd for !costly orders. So 
anything that introduces the possibility of OOM may look like regression 
for some corner case workloads. But I don't think that it's OK to not 
OOM for e.g. kernel stack allocations?

> Your series make compaction necessary for all. OOM handling
> is essential part in MM but compaction isn't. OOM handling should not
> depend on compaction. I tested my own benchmark without
> CONFIG_COMPACTION and found that premature OOM happens.
>
> I hope that you try to test something without CONFIG_COMPACTION.

Hmm a valid point, !CONFIG_COMPACTION should be considered. But reclaim 
cannot guarantee forming an order>0 page. But neither does OOM. So would 
you suggest we keep reclaiming without OOM as before, to prevent these 
regressions? Or where to draw the line here?

> Thanks.