linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] doc: memcontrol: add description for oom

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:   Mon, 1 Mar 2021 13:15:02 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: memcontrol: add description for oom_kill

On Fri 26-02-21 08:42:29, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:30 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu 25-02-21 18:12:54, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > When debugging an oom issue, I found the oom_kill counter of memcg is
> > > confusing.  At the first glance without checking document, I thought it
> > > just counts for memcg oom, but it turns out it counts both global and
> > > memcg oom.
> >
> > Yes, this is the case indeed. The point of the counter was to count oom
> > victims from the memcg rather than matching that to the source of the
> > oom. Rememeber that this could have been a memcg oom up in the
> > hierarchy as well. Counting victims on the oom origin could be equally
> 
> Yes, it is updated hierarchically on v2, but not on v1. I'm supposed
> this is because v1 may work in non-hierarchcal mode? If this is the
> only reason we may be able to remove this to get aligned with v2 since
> non-hierarchal mode is no longer supported.

I believe the reson is that v1 can have tasks in the intermediate
(non-leaf) memcgs. So you wouldn't have a way to tell whether the oom
kill has happened in such a memcg or somewhere down the hierarchy.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs