linux-kernel - Re: [patch] mm, oom: prevent soft lockup on memcg oom for UP systems

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.2.21.2003111513180.195367@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: prevent soft lockup on memcg oom for UP
 systems

On Thu, 12 Mar 2020, Tetsuo Handa wrote:

> > The cond_resched() here is needed if the iteration is lengthy depending on 
> > the number of descendant memcgs already.
> 
> No. cond_resched() here will become no-op if CONFIG_PREEMPTION=y and current
> thread has realtime priority.
> 

It's helpful without CONFIG_PREEMPTION for excessively long memcg 
iterations to avoid starving need_resched.

> > schedule_timeout_killable(1) does not make any guarantees that current 
> > will be scheduled after the victim or oom_reaper on UP systems.
> 
> The point of schedule_timeout_*(1) is to guarantee that current thread
> will yield CPU to other threads even if CONFIG_PREEMPTION=y and current
> thread has realtime priority case. There is no guarantee that current
> thread will be rescheduled immediately after a sleep is irrelevant.
> 
> > 
> > If you have an alternate patch to try, we can test it.  But since this 
> > cond_resched() is needed anyway, I'm not sure it will change the result.
> 
> schedule_timeout_killable(1) is an alternate patch to try; I don't think
> that this cond_resched() is needed anyway.
> 

You are suggesting schedule_timeout_killable(1) in shrink_node_memcgs()?