[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1706151430280.95906@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 14:37:45 -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, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: prevent additional oom kills before memory is
freed
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> David is trying to avoid setting MMF_OOM_SKIP when the OOM reaper found that
> mm->users == 0.
Yes, because MMF_OOM_SKIP enables the oom killer to select another process
to kill and will do so without the original victim's mm being able to
undergo exit_mmap(). So now we kill two or more processes when one would
have sufficied; I have seen up to four processes killed unnecessarily
without this patch.
> But we must not wait forever because __mmput() might fail to
> release some memory immediately. If __mmput() did not release some memory within
> schedule_timeout_idle(HZ/10) * MAX_OOM_REAP_RETRIES sleep, let the OOM killer
> invoke again. So, this is the case we want to address here, isn't it?
>
It is obviously a function of the number of threads that share the mm with
the oom victim to determine how long would be a sensible amount of time to
wait for __mmput() to even get a chance to be called, along with
potentially allowing a non-zero number of those threads to allocate from
memory reserves to allow them to eventually drop mm->mmap_sem to make
forward progress.
I have not witnessed any thread stalling in __mmput() that prevents the
mm's memory to be freed. I have witnessed several processes oom killed
unnecessarily for a single oom condition where before MMF_OOM_SKIP was
introduced, a single oom kill would have sufficed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists