linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: oom: deduplicate victim selection code for memcg and global 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: <20160608142146.GM22570@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:21:46 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:	vdavydov@...tuozzo.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	rientjes@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: oom: deduplicate victim selection code for memcg
 and global oom

On Wed 08-06-16 20:18:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > The victim selection code can be reduced because it is basically
> > shared between the two, only the iterator differs. But I guess that
> > can be eliminated by a simple helper.
> 
> Thank you for CC: me. I like this clean up.
> 
> > ---
> >  include/linux/oom.h |  5 +++++
> >  mm/memcontrol.c     | 47 ++++++-----------------------------------
> >  mm/oom_kill.c       | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> >  3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
> 
> I think we can apply your version with below changes folded into your version.
> (I think totalpages argument can be passed via oom_control as well. Also, according to
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201602192336.EJF90671.HMFLFSVOFJOtOQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp ,
> we can safely replace oc->memcg in oom_badness() in oom_evaluate_task() with NULL. )

yes oom_badness can never see a task from outside of the memcg
hierarchy.

[...]
> +static enum oom_scan_t oom_scan_process_thread(struct oom_control *oc,
> +					       struct task_struct *task)
>  {
>  	if (oom_unkillable_task(task, NULL, oc->nodemask))
>  		return OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE;
> @@ -307,6 +314,9 @@ int oom_evaluate_task(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *p, unsigned lo
>  	case OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE:
>  		return 1;
>  	case OOM_SCAN_ABORT:
> +		if (oc->chosen)
> +			put_task_struct(oc->chosen);
> +		oc->chosen = (void *) -1UL;

true including the memcg fixup.

>  		return 0;
>  	case OOM_SCAN_OK:
>  		break;

Thanks! I've updated the patch locally but I will wait for Vladimir what
he thinks about this wrt. the original approach.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs