linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] oom_kill: oom_score_adj broken for processes with small memory usage

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, 2 Sep 2021 12:55:01 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     cminyard@...sta.com
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, minyard@....org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom_kill: oom_score_adj broken for processes with small
 memory usage

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 07:25:47 -0500 Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 07:19:24AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 01-07-21 07:54:30, minyard@....org wrote:
> > > From: Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>
> > > 
> > > If you have a process with less than 1000 totalpages, the calculation:
> > > 
> > >   adj = (long)p->signal->oom_score_adj;
> > >   ...
> > >   adj *= totalpages / 1000;
> > > 
> > > will always result in adj being zero no matter what oom_score_adj is,
> > > which could result in the wrong process being picked for killing.
> > > 
> > > Fix by adding 1000 to totalpages before dividing.
> > 
> > Yes, this is a known limitation of the oom_score_adj and its scale.
> > Is this a practical problem to be solved though? I mean 0-1000 pages is
> > not really that much different from imprecision at a larger scale where
> > tasks are effectively considered equal.
> 
> Known limitation?  Is this documented?  I couldn't find anything that
> said "oom_score_adj doesn't work at all with programs with <1000 pages
> besides setting the value to -1000".
> 
> > 
> > I have to say I do not really like the proposed workaround. It doesn't
> > really solve the problem yet it adds another special case.
> 
> The problem is that if you have a small program, there is no way to
> set it's priority besides completely disablling the OOM killer for
> it.
> 
> I don't understand the special case comment.  How is this adding a
> special case?  This patch removes a special case.  Small programs
> working different than big programs is a special case.  Making them all
> work the same is removing an element of surprise from someone expecting
> things to work as documented.
> 

Can we please get this resolved one way or the other?