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  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:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 18:41:28 -0800
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm, oom: remove 'prefer children over parent' heuristic

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 1:59 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> From the start of the git history of Linux, the kernel after selecting
> the worst process to be oom-killed, prefer to kill its child (if the
> child does not share mm with the parent). Later it was changed to prefer
> to kill a child who is worst. If the parent is still the worst then the
> parent will be killed.
>
> This heuristic assumes that the children did less work than their parent
> and by killing one of them, the work lost will be less. However this is
> very workload dependent. If there is a workload which can benefit from
> this heuristic, can use oom_score_adj to prefer children to be killed
> before the parent.
>
> The select_bad_process() has already selected the worst process in the
> system/memcg. There is no need to recheck the badness of its children
> and hoping to find a worse candidate. That's a lot of unneeded racy
> work. Also the heuristic is dangerous because it make fork bomb like
> workloads to recover much later because we constantly pick and kill
> processes which are not memory hogs. So, let's remove this whole
> heuristic.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

Michal, though I have kept your Acked-by but I have made a couple of
changes in the code. Please let me know if you are ok with the
changes.

> Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>
> ---
> Changelog since v2:
> - Propagate the message to __oom_kill_process().
>
> Changelog since v1:
> - Improved commit message based on mhocko's comment.
> - Replaced 'p' with 'victim'.
> - Removed extra pr_err message.
>
> ---
>  mm/oom_kill.c | 78 ++++++++++++---------------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 1a007dae1e8f..c90184fd48a3 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -843,7 +843,7 @@ static bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
>         return ret;
>  }
>
> -static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim)
> +static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim, const char *message)
>  {
>         struct task_struct *p;
>         struct mm_struct *mm;
> @@ -874,8 +874,9 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim)
>          */
>         do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_PRIV, victim, PIDTYPE_TGID);
>         mark_oom_victim(victim);
> -       pr_err("Killed process %d (%s) total-vm:%lukB, anon-rss:%lukB, file-rss:%lukB, shmem-rss:%lukB\n",
> -               task_pid_nr(victim), victim->comm, K(victim->mm->total_vm),
> +       pr_err("%s: Killed process %d (%s) total-vm:%lukB, anon-rss:%lukB, file-rss:%lukB, shmem-rss:%lukB\n",
> +               message, task_pid_nr(victim), victim->comm,
> +               K(victim->mm->total_vm),
>                 K(get_mm_counter(victim->mm, MM_ANONPAGES)),
>                 K(get_mm_counter(victim->mm, MM_FILEPAGES)),
>                 K(get_mm_counter(victim->mm, MM_SHMEMPAGES)));
> @@ -932,24 +933,19 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim)
>   * Kill provided task unless it's secured by setting
>   * oom_score_adj to OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN.
>   */
> -static int oom_kill_memcg_member(struct task_struct *task, void *unused)
> +static int oom_kill_memcg_member(struct task_struct *task, void *message)
>  {
>         if (task->signal->oom_score_adj != OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN) {
>                 get_task_struct(task);
> -               __oom_kill_process(task);
> +               __oom_kill_process(task, message);
>         }
>         return 0;
>  }
>
>  static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message)
>  {
> -       struct task_struct *p = oc->chosen;
> -       unsigned int points = oc->chosen_points;
> -       struct task_struct *victim = p;
> -       struct task_struct *child;
> -       struct task_struct *t;
> +       struct task_struct *victim = oc->chosen;
>         struct mem_cgroup *oom_group;
> -       unsigned int victim_points = 0;
>         static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(oom_rs, DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL,
>                                               DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST);
>
> @@ -958,57 +954,18 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message)
>          * its children or threads, just give it access to memory reserves
>          * so it can die quickly
>          */
> -       task_lock(p);
> -       if (task_will_free_mem(p)) {
> -               mark_oom_victim(p);
> -               wake_oom_reaper(p);
> -               task_unlock(p);
> -               put_task_struct(p);
> +       task_lock(victim);
> +       if (task_will_free_mem(victim)) {
> +               mark_oom_victim(victim);
> +               wake_oom_reaper(victim);
> +               task_unlock(victim);
> +               put_task_struct(victim);
>                 return;
>         }
> -       task_unlock(p);
> +       task_unlock(victim);
>
>         if (__ratelimit(&oom_rs))
> -               dump_header(oc, p);
> -
> -       pr_err("%s: Kill process %d (%s) score %u or sacrifice child\n",
> -               message, task_pid_nr(p), p->comm, points);
> -
> -       /*
> -        * If any of p's children has a different mm and is eligible for kill,
> -        * the one with the highest oom_badness() score is sacrificed for its
> -        * parent.  This attempts to lose the minimal amount of work done while
> -        * still freeing memory.
> -        */
> -       read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> -
> -       /*
> -        * The task 'p' might have already exited before reaching here. The
> -        * put_task_struct() will free task_struct 'p' while the loop still try
> -        * to access the field of 'p', so, get an extra reference.
> -        */
> -       get_task_struct(p);
> -       for_each_thread(p, t) {
> -               list_for_each_entry(child, &t->children, sibling) {
> -                       unsigned int child_points;
> -
> -                       if (process_shares_mm(child, p->mm))
> -                               continue;
> -                       /*
> -                        * oom_badness() returns 0 if the thread is unkillable
> -                        */
> -                       child_points = oom_badness(child,
> -                               oc->memcg, oc->nodemask, oc->totalpages);
> -                       if (child_points > victim_points) {
> -                               put_task_struct(victim);
> -                               victim = child;
> -                               victim_points = child_points;
> -                               get_task_struct(victim);
> -                       }
> -               }
> -       }
> -       put_task_struct(p);
> -       read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +               dump_header(oc, victim);
>
>         /*
>          * Do we need to kill the entire memory cgroup?
> @@ -1017,14 +974,15 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message)
>          */
>         oom_group = mem_cgroup_get_oom_group(victim, oc->memcg);
>
> -       __oom_kill_process(victim);
> +       __oom_kill_process(victim, message);
>
>         /*
>          * If necessary, kill all tasks in the selected memory cgroup.
>          */
>         if (oom_group) {
>                 mem_cgroup_print_oom_group(oom_group);
> -               mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(oom_group, oom_kill_memcg_member, NULL);
> +               mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(oom_group, oom_kill_memcg_member,
> +                                     (void*) message);
>                 mem_cgroup_put(oom_group);
>         }
>  }
> --
> 2.20.1.321.g9e740568ce-goog
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists