linux-kernel - Re: [v7 5/5] mm, oom: cgroup v2 mount option to disable cgroup-aware OOM killer

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]

Date:   Thu, 7 Sep 2017 12:03:08 -0500 (CDT)
From:   Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
cc:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, nzimmer@....com,
        holt@....com, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...com,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sivanich@....com
Subject: Re: [v7 5/5] mm, oom: cgroup v2 mount option to disable cgroup-aware
 OOM killer

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 10:03:24AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >
> > > > Really? From what I know and worked on way back when: The reason was to be
> > > > able to contain the affected application in a cpuset. Multiple apps may
> > > > have been running in multiple cpusets on a large NUMA machine and the OOM
> > > > condition in one cpuset should not affect the other. It also helped to
> > > > isolate the application behavior causing the oom in numerous cases.
> > > >
> > > > Doesnt this requirement transfer to cgroups in the same way?
> > >
> > > We have per-node memory stats and plan to use them during the OOM victim
> > > selection. Hopefully it can help.
> >
> > One of the OOM causes could be that memory was restricted to a certain
> > node set. Killing the allocating task is (was?) default behavior in that
> > case so that the task that has the restrictions is killed. Not any task
> > that may not have the restrictions and woiuld not experience OOM.
>
> As I can see, it's not the default behavior these days. If we have a way
> to select a victim between memcgs/tasks which are actually using
> the corresponding type of memory, it's much better than to kill
> an allocating task.

Kill the whole set of processes constituting an app in a cgroup or so
sounds good to me.