linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: fix 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 10 May 2018 15:07:59 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     kernel-team@...com, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: fix oom_kill event handling

On Thu 10-05-18 13:12:56, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 01:41:47PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 08-05-18 13:46:37, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > Commit e27be240df53 ("mm: memcg: make sure memory.events is
> > > uptodate when waking pollers") converted most of memcg event
> > > counters to per-memcg atomics, which made them less confusing
> > > for a user. The "oom_kill" counter remained untouched, so now
> > > it behaves differently than other counters (including "oom").
> > > This adds nothing but confusion.
> > > 
> > > Let's fix this by adding the MEMCG_OOM_KILL event, and follow
> > > the MEMCG_OOM approach. This also removes a hack from
> > > count_memcg_event_mm(), introduced earlier specially for the
> > > OOM_KILL counter.
> > 
> > I agree that the current OOM_KILL is confusing. But do we really need
> > another memcg_memory_event_mm helper used for only one counter rather
> > than reuse memcg_memory_event. __oom_kill_process doesn't have the memcg
> > but nothing should really prevent us from adding the context
> > (oom_control) there, no?
> 
> Not sure, that I follow. oom_control has memcg pointer,
> but it's a pointer to a cgroup, where OOM happened.
> In particular, it's NULL for a system-wide OOM.
> 
> And we do send the OOM_KILL event to the cgroup,
> which actually contains the process.

You are right! For some reason I thought we do count events on the
hierarchy which is under OOM. I was wrong.

Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs