[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180130082817.cbax5qj4mxancx4b@node.shutemov.name>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:28:17 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
davem@...emloft.net, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
coreteam@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
aarcange@...hat.com, yang.s@...baba-inc.com,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, guro@...com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [netfilter-core] kernel panic: Out of memory and no killable
processes... (2)
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:11:27AM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon 29-01-18 23:35:22, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > > Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > I hate what I'm saying, but I guess we need some tunable here.
> > > > Not sure what exactly.
> > >
> > > Would memcg help?
> >
> > That really depends. I would have to check whether vmalloc path obeys
> > __GFP_ACCOUNT (I suspect it does except for page tables allocations but
> > that shouldn't be a big deal). But then the other potential problem is
> > the life time of the xt_table_info (or other potentially large) data
> > structures. Are they bound to any process life time.
>
> No.
Well, IIUC they bound to net namespace life time, so killing all
proccesses in the namespace would help to get memory back. :)
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists