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]

Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:32:38 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        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 11:07:15 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Mar 2020, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> 
> > > On Thu, 12 Mar 2020, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > > 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()?
> > > 
> > 
> > Andrew Morton also mentioned whether cond_resched() in shrink_node_memcgs()
> > is enough. But like you mentioned,
> > 
> 
> It passes our testing because this is where the allocator is looping while 
> the victim is trying to exit if only it could be scheduled.

What happens if the allocator has SCHED_FIFO?