From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: CAI Qian <caiqian@redhat.com>,
avagin@gmail.com, Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] oom: oom-killer don't use permillage of system-ram internally
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 17:15:44 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110510171724.16B3.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110510171335.16A7.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
CAI Qian reported his kernel did hang-up if he ran fork intensive
workload and then invoke oom-killer.
The problem is, Current oom calculation uses 0-1000 normalized value
(The unit is a permillage of system-ram). Its low precision make
a lot of same oom score. IOW, in his case, all processes have <1
oom score and internal integral calculation round it to 1. Thus
oom-killer kill ineligible process. This regression is caused by
commit a63d83f427 (oom: badness heuristic rewrite).
The solution is, the internal calculation just use number of pages
instead of permillage of system-ram. And convert it to permillage
value at displaying time.
This patch doesn't change any ABI (included /proc/<pid>/oom_score_adj)
even though current logic has a lot of my dislike thing.
Reported-by: CAI Qian <caiqian@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
fs/proc/base.c | 13 ++++++----
include/linux/oom.h | 7 +----
mm/oom_kill.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
index dfa5327..d6b0424 100644
--- a/fs/proc/base.c
+++ b/fs/proc/base.c
@@ -476,14 +476,17 @@ static const struct file_operations proc_lstats_operations = {
static int proc_oom_score(struct task_struct *task, char *buffer)
{
- unsigned long points = 0;
+ unsigned long points;
+ unsigned long ratio = 0;
+ unsigned long totalpages = totalram_pages + total_swap_pages + 1;
read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
- if (pid_alive(task))
- points = oom_badness(task, NULL, NULL,
- totalram_pages + total_swap_pages);
+ if (pid_alive(task)) {
+ points = oom_badness(task, NULL, NULL, totalpages);
+ ratio = points * 1000 / totalpages;
+ }
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
- return sprintf(buffer, "%lu\n", points);
+ return sprintf(buffer, "%lu\n", ratio);
}
struct limit_names {
diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h
index 5e3aa83..0f5b588 100644
--- a/include/linux/oom.h
+++ b/include/linux/oom.h
@@ -40,7 +40,8 @@ enum oom_constraint {
CONSTRAINT_MEMCG,
};
-extern unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
+/* The badness from the OOM killer */
+extern unsigned long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
const nodemask_t *nodemask, unsigned long totalpages);
extern int try_set_zonelist_oom(struct zonelist *zonelist, gfp_t gfp_flags);
extern void clear_zonelist_oom(struct zonelist *zonelist, gfp_t gfp_flags);
@@ -62,10 +63,6 @@ static inline void oom_killer_enable(void)
oom_killer_disabled = false;
}
-/* The badness from the OOM killer */
-extern unsigned long badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
- const nodemask_t *nodemask, unsigned long uptime);
-
extern struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(struct task_struct *p);
/* sysctls */
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 0cf5091..ba95870 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -132,10 +132,12 @@ static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p,
* predictable as possible. The goal is to return the highest value for the
* task consuming the most memory to avoid subsequent oom failures.
*/
-unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
+unsigned long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
const nodemask_t *nodemask, unsigned long totalpages)
{
- int points;
+ unsigned long points;
+ unsigned long score_adj = 0;
+
if (oom_unkillable_task(p, mem, nodemask))
return 0;
@@ -160,7 +162,7 @@ unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
*/
if (p->flags & PF_OOM_ORIGIN) {
task_unlock(p);
- return 1000;
+ return ULONG_MAX;
}
/*
@@ -176,33 +178,49 @@ unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
*/
points = get_mm_rss(p->mm) + p->mm->nr_ptes;
points += get_mm_counter(p->mm, MM_SWAPENTS);
-
- points *= 1000;
- points /= totalpages;
task_unlock(p);
/*
* Root processes get 3% bonus, just like the __vm_enough_memory()
* implementation used by LSMs.
+ *
+ * XXX: Too large bonus. Example,if the system have tera-bytes memory...
*/
- if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
- points -= 30;
+ if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
+ if (points >= totalpages / 32)
+ points -= totalpages / 32;
+ else
+ points = 0;
+ }
/*
* /proc/pid/oom_score_adj ranges from -1000 to +1000 such that it may
* either completely disable oom killing or always prefer a certain
* task.
*/
- points += p->signal->oom_score_adj;
+ if (p->signal->oom_score_adj >= 0) {
+ score_adj = p->signal->oom_score_adj * (totalpages / 1000);
+ if (ULONG_MAX - points >= score_adj)
+ points += score_adj;
+ else
+ points = ULONG_MAX;
+ } else {
+ score_adj = -p->signal->oom_score_adj * (totalpages / 1000);
+ if (points >= score_adj)
+ points -= score_adj;
+ else
+ points = 0;
+ }
/*
* Never return 0 for an eligible task that may be killed since it's
* possible that no single user task uses more than 0.1% of memory and
* no single admin tasks uses more than 3.0%.
*/
- if (points <= 0)
- return 1;
- return (points < 1000) ? points : 1000;
+ if (!points)
+ points = 1;
+
+ return points;
}
/*
@@ -274,7 +292,7 @@ static enum oom_constraint constrained_alloc(struct zonelist *zonelist,
*
* (not docbooked, we don't want this one cluttering up the manual)
*/
-static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned int *ppoints,
+static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned long *ppoints,
unsigned long totalpages, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
const nodemask_t *nodemask)
{
@@ -283,7 +301,7 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned int *ppoints,
*ppoints = 0;
do_each_thread_reverse(g, p) {
- unsigned int points;
+ unsigned long points;
if (!p->mm)
continue;
@@ -314,7 +332,7 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned int *ppoints,
*/
if (p == current) {
chosen = p;
- *ppoints = 1000;
+ *ppoints = ULONG_MAX;
} else {
/*
* If this task is not being ptraced on exit,
@@ -444,14 +462,14 @@ static int oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem)
#undef K
static int oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
- unsigned int points, unsigned long totalpages,
+ unsigned long points, unsigned long totalpages,
struct mem_cgroup *mem, nodemask_t *nodemask,
const char *message)
{
struct task_struct *victim = p;
struct task_struct *child;
struct task_struct *t = p;
- unsigned int victim_points = 0;
+ unsigned long victim_points = 0;
if (printk_ratelimit())
dump_header(p, gfp_mask, order, mem, nodemask);
@@ -466,7 +484,7 @@ static int oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
}
task_lock(p);
- pr_err("%s: Kill process %d (%s) score %d or sacrifice child\n",
+ pr_err("%s: Kill process %d (%s) points %d or sacrifice child\n",
message, task_pid_nr(p), p->comm, points);
task_unlock(p);
@@ -478,7 +496,7 @@ static int oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
*/
do {
list_for_each_entry(child, &t->children, sibling) {
- unsigned int child_points;
+ unsigned long child_points;
if (child->mm == p->mm)
continue;
@@ -525,7 +543,7 @@ static void check_panic_on_oom(enum oom_constraint constraint, gfp_t gfp_mask,
void mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *mem, gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
unsigned long limit;
- unsigned int points = 0;
+ unsigned long points = 0;
struct task_struct *p;
/*
@@ -674,7 +692,7 @@ void out_of_memory(struct zonelist *zonelist, gfp_t gfp_mask,
struct task_struct *p;
unsigned long totalpages;
unsigned long freed = 0;
- unsigned int points;
+ unsigned long points;
enum oom_constraint constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
int killed = 0;
--
1.7.3.1
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-10 8:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-05 11:44 [PATCH] mm: check zone->all_unreclaimable in all_unreclaimable() Andrey Vagin
2011-03-05 15:20 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-05 15:34 ` Andrew Vagin
2011-03-05 15:53 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-05 16:41 ` Andrew Vagin
2011-03-05 17:07 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-07 21:58 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-07 23:45 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-09 5:37 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-09 5:43 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-10 6:58 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-10 23:58 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-11 0:18 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-11 6:08 ` avagin
2011-03-14 1:03 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-08 0:44 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-08 3:06 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-08 19:02 ` avagin
2011-03-09 5:52 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-09 6:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-10 14:08 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-08 8:12 ` Andrew Vagin
2011-03-09 6:06 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-05-04 1:38 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-09 6:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-09 8:47 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-09 9:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 8:11 ` OOM Killer don't works at all if the system have >gigabytes memory (was Re: [PATCH] mm: check zone->all_unreclaimable in all_unreclaimable()) KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 8:14 ` [PATCH 1/4] oom: improve dump_tasks() show items KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 23:29 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13 10:14 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 8:15 ` [PATCH 2/4] oom: kill younger process first KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 23:31 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13 10:15 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-11 23:33 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12 0:52 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-05-12 1:30 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12 1:53 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-05-12 2:23 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12 3:39 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-05-12 4:17 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12 14:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-13 10:18 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 8:15 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2011-05-10 23:40 ` [PATCH 3/4] oom: oom-killer don't use permillage of system-ram internally David Rientjes
2011-05-13 10:30 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 8:16 ` [PATCH 4/4] oom: don't kill random process KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 23:41 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-10 23:22 ` OOM Killer don't works at all if the system have >gigabytes memory (was Re: [PATCH] mm: check zone->all_unreclaimable in all_unreclaimable()) David Rientjes
2011-05-11 2:30 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-11 20:34 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-12 0:13 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12 19:38 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13 4:16 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-13 11:04 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-16 20:42 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13 6:53 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-16 20:46 ` David Rientjes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110510171724.16B3.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=avagin@gmail.com \
--cc=avagin@openvz.org \
--cc=caiqian@redhat.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox