[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d233acb6-72ff-4914-88a3-75bf137e5286@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 13:42:49 -0400
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, mhocko@...e.com,
penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, llong@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/oom_kill: show oom eligibility when displaying the
current memory state of all tasks
On 6/11/21 1:19 PM, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> At the present time, when showing potential OOM victims, we do not
> exclude tasks which already have MMF_OOM_SKIP set; it is possible that
> the last OOM killable victim was already OOM killed, yet the OOM
> reaper failed to reclaim memory and set MMF_OOM_SKIP.
> This can be confusing/or perhaps even misleading, to the reader of the
> OOM report. Now, we already unconditionally display a task's
> oom_score_adj_min value that can be set to OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN which is
> indicative of an "unkillable" task i.e. is not eligible.
>
> This patch provides a clear indication with regard to the OOM
> eligibility of each displayed task.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>
> ---
> mm/oom_kill.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index eefd3f5fde46..70781d681a6e 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -160,6 +160,27 @@ static inline bool is_sysrq_oom(struct oom_control *oc)
> return oc->order == -1;
> }
>
> +/**
> + * is_task_eligible_oom - determine if and why a task cannot be OOM killed
> + * @tsk: task to check
> + *
> + * Needs to be called with task_lock().
> + */
> +static const char * is_task_oom_eligible(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + long adj;
> +
> + adj = (long)p->signal->oom_score_adj;
> + if (adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN)
> + return "no: oom score";
> + else if (test_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &p->mm->flags)
> + return "no: oom reaped";
> + else if (in_vfork(p))
> + return "no: in vfork";
> + else
> + return "yes";
> +}
> +
> /* return true if the task is not adequate as candidate victim task. */
> static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> @@ -401,12 +422,13 @@ static int dump_task(struct task_struct *p, void *arg)
> return 0;
> }
>
> - pr_info("[%7d] %5d %5d %8lu %8lu %8ld %8lu %5hd %s\n",
> + pr_info("[%7d] %5d %5d %8lu %8lu %8ld %8lu %5hd %-15s %s\n",
> task->pid, from_kuid(&init_user_ns, task_uid(task)),
> task->tgid, task->mm->total_vm, get_mm_rss(task->mm),
> mm_pgtables_bytes(task->mm),
> get_mm_counter(task->mm, MM_SWAPENTS),
> - task->signal->oom_score_adj, task->comm);
> + task->signal->oom_score_adj, is_task_oom_eligible(task),
> + task->comm);
> task_unlock(task);
>
> return 0;
> @@ -420,12 +442,13 @@ static int dump_task(struct task_struct *p, void *arg)
> * memcg, not in the same cpuset, or bound to a disjoint set of mempolicy nodes
> * are not shown.
> * State information includes task's pid, uid, tgid, vm size, rss,
> - * pgtables_bytes, swapents, oom_score_adj value, and name.
> + * pgtables_bytes, swapents, oom_score_adj value, oom eligible status
> + * and name.
> */
> static void dump_tasks(struct oom_control *oc)
> {
> 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");
> + pr_info("[ pid ] uid tgid total_vm rss pgtables_bytes swapents oom_score_adj oom eligible? name\n");
A minor nit:
"oom eligible?" has 13 characters. The field width is 15. Maybe you
should pad 2 more spaces to make the proper alignment.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists