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: <20190201191636.GA17391@chrisdown.name>
Date:   Fri, 1 Feb 2019 14:16:36 -0500
From:   Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Throttle allocators when failing reclaim over
 memory.high

Michal Hocko writes:
>How does this play wit the actual OOM when the user expects oom to
>resolve the situation because the reclaim is futile and there is nothing
>reclaimable except for killing a process?

In addition to what Johannes said, this doesn't impede OOM in the case of 
global system starvation (eg. in the case that all major consumers of memory 
are allocator throttling). In that case nothing unusual will happen, since the 
task's state is TASK_KILLABLE rather than TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, and we will 
exit out of mem_cgroup_handle_over_high as quickly as possible.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ