linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/oom: Add oom_score_adj value to oom Killed process message

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:15:44 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Edward Chron <echron@...sta.com>
Cc:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ivan Delalande <colona@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/oom: Add oom_score_adj value to oom Killed process
 message

On Wed 21-08-19 15:22:07, Edward Chron wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:19 AM David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > > vm.oom_dump_tasks is pretty useful, however, so it's curious why you
> > > > haven't left it enabled :/
> > >
> > > Because it generates a lot of output potentially. Think of a workload
> > > with too many tasks which is not uncommon.
> >
> > Probably better to always print all the info for the victim so we don't
> > need to duplicate everything between dump_tasks() and dump_oom_summary().
> >
> > Edward, how about this?
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -420,11 +420,17 @@ static int dump_task(struct task_struct *p, void *arg)
> >   * State information includes task's pid, uid, tgid, vm size, rss,
> >   * pgtables_bytes, swapents, oom_score_adj value, and name.
> >   */
> > -static void dump_tasks(struct oom_control *oc)
> > +static void dump_tasks(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *victim)
> >  {
> >         pr_info("Tasks state (memory values in pages):\n");
> >         pr_info("[  pid  ]   uid  tgid total_vm      rss pgtables_bytes swapents oom_score_adj name\n");
> >
> > +       /* If vm.oom_dump_tasks is disabled, only show the victim */
> > +       if (!sysctl_oom_dump_tasks) {
> > +               dump_task(victim, oc);
> > +               return;
> > +       }
> > +
> >         if (is_memcg_oom(oc))
> >                 mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(oc->memcg, dump_task, oc);
> >         else {
> > @@ -465,8 +471,8 @@ static void dump_header(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *p)
> >                 if (is_dump_unreclaim_slabs())
> >                         dump_unreclaimable_slab();
> >         }
> > -       if (sysctl_oom_dump_tasks)
> > -               dump_tasks(oc);
> > +       if (p || sysctl_oom_dump_tasks)
> > +               dump_tasks(oc, p);
> >         if (p)
> >                 dump_oom_summary(oc, p);
> >  }
> 
> I would be willing to accept this, though as Michal mentions in his
> post, it would be very helpful to have the oom_score_adj on the Killed
> process message.
> 
> One reason for that is that the Killed process message is the one
> message that is printed with error priority (pr_err)
> and so that message can be filtered out and sent to notify support
> that an OOM event occurred.
> Putting any information that can be shared in that message is useful
> from my experience as it the initial point of triage for an OOM event.
> Even if the full log with per user process is available it the
> starting point for triage for an OOM event.
> 
> So from my perspective I would be happy having both, with David's
> proposal providing a bit of extra information as shown here:
> 
> Jul 21 20:07:48 linuxserver kernel: [  pid  ]   uid  tgid total_vm
>  rss pgtables_bytes swapents oom_score_adj name
> Jul 21 20:07:48 linuxserver kernel: [    547]     0   547    31664
> 615             299008              0                       0
> systemd-journal
> 
> The OOM Killed process message will print as:
> 
> Jul 21 20:07:48 linuxserver kernel: Out of memory: Killed process 2826
> (oomprocs) total-vm:1056800kB, anon-rss:1052784kB, file-rss:4kB,
> shmem-rss:0kB oom_score_adj:1000
> 
> But if only one one output change is allowed I'd favor the Killed
> process message since that can be singled due to it's print priority
> and forwarded.
> 
> By the way, right now there is redundancy in that the Killed process
> message is printing vm, rss even if vm.oom_dump_tasks is enabled.
> I don't see why that is a big deal.

There will always be redundancy there because dump_tasks part is there
mostly to check the oom victim decision for potential wrong/unexpected
selection. While "killed..." message is there to inform who has been
killed. Most people really do care about that part only.

> It is very useful to have all the information that is there.
> Wouldn't mind also having pgtables too but we would be able to get
> that from the output of dump_task if that is enabled.

I am not against adding pgrable information there. That memory is going
to be released when the task dies.
 
> If it is acceptable to also add the dump_task for the killed process
> for !sysctl_oom_dump_tasks I can repost the patch including that as
> well.

Well, I would rather focus on adding the missing pieces to the killed
task message instead.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs