linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/23] mm: BPF 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]

Message-ID: <aQSB-BgjKmSkrSO7@tiehlicka>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 10:31:36 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	JP Kobryn <inwardvessel@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>,
	Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/23] mm: BPF OOM

On Mon 27-10-25 16:17:03, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> The second part is related to the fundamental question on when to
> declare the OOM event. It's a trade-off between the risk of
> unnecessary OOM kills and associated work losses and the risk of
> infinite trashing and effective soft lockups.  In the last few years
> several PSI-based userspace solutions were developed (e.g. OOMd [3] or
> systemd-OOMd [4]). The common idea was to use userspace daemons to
> implement custom OOM logic as well as rely on PSI monitoring to avoid
> stalls. In this scenario the userspace daemon was supposed to handle
> the majority of OOMs, while the in-kernel OOM killer worked as the
> last resort measure to guarantee that the system would never deadlock
> on the memory. But this approach creates additional infrastructure
> churn: userspace OOM daemon is a separate entity which needs to be
> deployed, updated, monitored. A completely different pipeline needs to
> be built to monitor both types of OOM events and collect associated
> logs. A userspace daemon is more restricted in terms on what data is
> available to it. Implementing a daemon which can work reliably under a
> heavy memory pressure in the system is also tricky.

I do not see this part addressed in the series. Am I just missing
something or this will follow up once the initial (plugging to the
existing OOM handling) is merged?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs