From: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@honor.com>
To: <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Cc: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <feng.han@honor.com>,
<jsavitz@redhat.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <liulu.liu@honor.com>,
<mhocko@suse.com>, <npache@redhat.com>, <rientjes@google.com>,
<zhongjinji@honor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: delay oom_reaper only for the process using robust-futex
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 21:20:14 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250801132014.5740-1-zhongjinji@honor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <u3mepw3oxj7cywezna4v72y2hvyc7bafkmsbirsbfuf34zpa7c@b23sc3rvp2gp>
Yeah, it is enough time for any process on Android to exit within 2 seconds,
so the oom reaper basically does not work.
Currently, we have not found any users of robust futex on Android.
As we know, adding killed processes to the oom_reaper queue can help
free their memory faster.
Delaying the oom reaper for all processes might lead to less efficient
memory reclamation, which could be undesirable.
>
>>
>> But I noticed that many processes do not use robust-futex, so they do not
>> access user-space memory during do_exit and do not run into the problem
>> mentioned in that patch.
>>
>> So, this change delays the oom_reaper only when the process uses
>> robust-futex, letting the oom_reaper work properly in more cases.
>
>The direction seems reasonable.
>
>>
>> +static inline bool exit_may_access_user(struct task_struct *task)
>> +{
>> + return task->robust_list || task->compat_robust_list;
>
>Here I am not sure. This robust_list seems like a per-task list and we
>are making a process level decision based on a given task's usage of
>robust list. Can we have a scenario where some tasks/threads of a
>process does not have robust list and others have? If yes this can cause
>similar similar which the original patch tried to solve, right?
Yes, we definitely need to check whether all threads have a robust list.
Thanks for the reminder.
I will include this fix in the next version.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-01 13:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-31 10:29 zhongjinji
2025-07-31 16:54 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-08-01 13:20 ` zhongjinji [this message]
2025-07-31 22:28 ` kernel test robot
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=20250801132014.5740-1-zhongjinji@honor.com \
--to=zhongjinji@honor.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=feng.han@honor.com \
--cc=jsavitz@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liulu.liu@honor.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=npache@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
/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