From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: rientjes@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@suse.cz, aarcange@redhat.com,
david@fromorbit.com, vbabka@suse.cz, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] mm: oom_kill: simplify OOM killer locking
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:48:21 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201504291448.GDH51070.OOOFMFVHLStQFJ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1504281540280.10203@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
David Rientjes wrote:
> It's not vital and somewhat unrelated to your patch, but if we can't grab
> the mutex with the trylock in __alloc_pages_may_oom() then I think it
> would be more correct to do schedule_timeout_killable() rather than
> uninterruptible. I just mention it if you happen to go through another
> revision of the series and want to switch it at the same time.
It is a difficult choice. Killable sleep is a good thing if
(1) the OOM victim is current thread
(2) the OOM victim is waiting for current thread to release lock
but is a bad thing otherwise. And currently, (2) is not true because current
thread cannot access the memory reserves when current thread is blocking the
OOM victim. If fatal_signal_pending() threads can access portion of the memory
reserves (like I said
I don't like allowing only TIF_MEMDIE to get reserve access, for it can be
one of !TIF_MEMDIE threads which really need memory to safely terminate without
failing allocations from do_exit(). Rather, why not to discontinue TIF_MEMDIE
handling and allow getting access to private memory reserves for all
fatal_signal_pending() threads (i.e. replacing WMARK_OOM with WMARK_KILLED
in "[patch 09/12] mm: page_alloc: private memory reserves for OOM-killing
allocations") ?
at https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/27/378 ), (2) will become true.
Of course, the threads which the OOM victim is waiting for may not have
SIGKILL pending. WMARK_KILLED helps if the lock contention is happening
among threads sharing the same mm struct, does not help otherwise.
Well, what about introducing WMARK_OOM as a memory reserve which can be
accessed during atomic_read(&oom_victims) > 0? In this way, we can choose
next OOM victim upon reaching WMARK_OOM.
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-29 6:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-27 19:05 [PATCH 0/9] mm: improve OOM mechanism v2 Johannes Weiner
2015-04-27 19:05 ` [PATCH 1/9] mm: oom_kill: remove unnecessary locking in oom_enable() Johannes Weiner
2015-04-27 19:05 ` [PATCH 2/9] mm: oom_kill: clean up victim marking and exiting interfaces Johannes Weiner
2015-04-27 19:05 ` [PATCH 3/9] mm: oom_kill: switch test-and-clear of known TIF_MEMDIE to clear Johannes Weiner
2015-04-27 19:05 ` [PATCH 4/9] mm: oom_kill: generalize OOM progress waitqueue Johannes Weiner
2015-04-28 22:40 ` David Rientjes
2015-04-27 19:05 ` [PATCH 5/9] mm: oom_kill: remove unnecessary locking in exit_oom_victim() Johannes Weiner
2015-04-28 22:40 ` David Rientjes
2015-04-27 19:05 ` [PATCH 6/9] mm: oom_kill: simplify OOM killer locking Johannes Weiner
2015-04-28 22:43 ` David Rientjes
2015-04-29 5:48 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2015-04-27 19:05 ` [PATCH 7/9] mm: page_alloc: inline should_alloc_retry() Johannes Weiner
2015-04-27 19:05 ` [PATCH 8/9] mm: page_alloc: wait for OOM killer progress before retrying Johannes Weiner
2015-04-28 13:18 ` Michal Hocko
2015-04-27 19:05 ` [PATCH 9/9] mm: page_alloc: memory reserve access for OOM-killing allocations Johannes Weiner
2015-04-28 13:30 ` Michal Hocko
2015-04-28 14:59 ` Michal Hocko
2015-04-28 10:34 ` [PATCH 0/9] mm: improve OOM mechanism v2 Tetsuo Handa
2015-04-28 13:55 ` Michal Hocko
2015-04-28 15:50 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-04-29 12:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2015-04-29 14:40 ` Michal Hocko
2015-04-29 17:27 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-04-29 18:31 ` Michal Hocko
2015-04-30 9:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-04-30 14:25 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-23 14:42 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-05-04 18:02 ` Johannes Weiner
2015-05-04 19:01 ` Michal Hocko
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=201504291448.GDH51070.OOOFMFVHLStQFJ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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