linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: remove sleep from under 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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807091548280.125566@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: remove sleep from under oom_lock

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:

> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> 
> Tetsuo has pointed out that since 27ae357fa82b ("mm, oom: fix concurrent
> munlock and oom reaper unmap, v3") we have a strong synchronization
> between the oom_killer and victim's exiting because both have to take
> the oom_lock. Therefore the original heuristic to sleep for a short time
> in out_of_memory doesn't serve the original purpose.
> 
> Moreover Tetsuo has noticed that the short sleep can be more harmful
> than actually useful. Hammering the system with many processes can lead
> to a starvation when the task holding the oom_lock can block for a
> long time (minutes) and block any further progress because the
> oom_reaper depends on the oom_lock as well.
> 
> Drop the short sleep from out_of_memory when we hold the lock. Keep the
> sleep when the trylock fails to throttle the concurrent OOM paths a bit.
> This should be solved in a more reasonable way (e.g. sleep proportional
> to the time spent in the active reclaiming etc.) but this is much more
> complex thing to achieve. This is a quick fixup to remove a stale code.
> 
> Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

This reminds me:

mm/oom_kill.c

 54) int sysctl_oom_dump_tasks = 1;
 55) 
 56) DEFINE_MUTEX(oom_lock);
 57) 
 58) #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA

Would you mind documenting oom_lock to specify what it's protecting?