[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807091323570.101462@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 13:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch v3] mm, oom: fix unnecessary killing of additional
processes
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Blockable mmu notifiers and mlocked memory is not the extent of the
> > problem, if a process has a lot of virtual memory we must wait until
> > free_pgtables() completes in exit_mmap() to prevent unnecessary oom
> > killing. For implementations such as tcmalloc, which does not release
> > virtual memory, this is important because, well, it releases this only at
> > exit_mmap(). Of course we cannot do that with only the protection of
> > mm->mmap_sem for read.
>
> And how exactly a timeout helps to prevent from "unnecessary killing" in
> that case?
As my patch does, it becomes mandatory to move MMF_OOM_SKIP to after
free_pgtables() in exit_mmap() and then repurpose MMF_UNSTABLE to
indicate that the oom reaper should not operate on a given mm. In the
event we cannot reach MMF_OOM_SKIP, we need to ensure forward progress and
that is possible with a timeout period in the very rare instance where
additional memory freeing is needed, and without unnecessary oom killing
when it is not needed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists