From: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@honor.com>
To: <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <andrealmeid@igalia.com>,
<dave@stgolabs.net>, <dvhart@infradead.org>, <feng.han@honor.com>,
<liam.howlett@oracle.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@kvack.org>, <liulu.liu@honor.com>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
<npache@redhat.com>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
<rientjes@google.com>, <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
<tglx@linutronix.de>, <zhongjinji@honor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm/oom_kill: Only delay OOM reaper for processes using robust futexes
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 20:08:19 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250818120819.26709-1-zhongjinji@honor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aKIvd4ZCdWUEpBT_@tiehlicka>
> On Thu 14-08-25 21:55:54, zhongjinji@honor.com wrote:
> > From: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@honor.com>
> >
> > The OOM reaper can quickly reap a process's memory when the system encounters
> > OOM, helping the system recover. Without the OOM reaper, if a process frozen
> > by cgroup v1 is OOM killed, the victims' memory cannot be freed, and the
> > system stays in a poor state. Even if the process is not frozen by cgroup v1,
> > reaping victims' memory is still meaningful, because having one more process
> > working speeds up memory release.
> >
> > When processes holding robust futexes are OOM killed but waiters on those
> > futexes remain alive, the robust futexes might be reaped before
> > futex_cleanup() runs. It would cause the waiters to block indefinitely.
> > To prevent this issue, the OOM reaper's work is delayed by 2 seconds [1].
> > The OOM reaper now rarely runs since many killed processes exit within 2
> > seconds.
> >
> > Because robust futex users are few, it is unreasonable to delay OOM reap for
> > all victims. For processes that do not hold robust futexes, the OOM reaper
> > should not be delayed and for processes holding robust futexes, the OOM
> > reaper must still be delayed to prevent the waiters to block indefinitely [1].
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220414144042.677008-1-npache@redhat.com/T/#u [1]
>
> What has happened to
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/aJGiHyTXS_BqxoK2@tiehlicka/T/#u ?
If a process holding robust futexes gets frozen, robust futexes might be reaped before
futex_cleanup() runs when an OOM occurs. I am not sure if this will actually happen.
>
> Generally speaking it would be great to provide a link to previous
> versions of the patchset. I do not see v3 in my inbox (which is quite
> messy ATM so I might have easily missed it).
This is version v3, where I mainly fixed the error in the Subject prefix,
changing it from futex to mm/oom_kill.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250804030341.18619-1-zhongjinji@honor.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250804030341.18619-2-zhongjinji@honor.com/
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-18 12:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-14 13:55 [PATCH v4 0/3] " zhongjinji
2025-08-14 13:55 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] futex: Introduce function process_has_robust_futex() zhongjinji
2025-08-14 13:55 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] mm/oom_kill: Only delay OOM reaper for processes using robust futexes zhongjinji
2025-08-15 14:41 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-08-18 14:14 ` zhongjinji
2025-08-17 19:37 ` Michal Hocko
2025-08-18 12:08 ` zhongjinji [this message]
2025-08-19 10:49 ` Michal Hocko
2025-08-20 2:53 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2025-08-21 18:13 ` Michal Hocko
2025-08-21 19:45 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2025-08-14 13:55 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] mm/oom_kill: Have the OOM reaper and exit_mmap() traverse the maple tree in opposite orders zhongjinji
2025-08-14 23:09 ` Andrew Morton
2025-08-15 16:32 ` zhongjinji
2025-08-15 17:52 ` gio
2025-08-15 17:53 ` gio
2025-08-15 14:29 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-08-15 15:01 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-08-15 17:37 ` zhongjinji
2025-08-19 15:18 ` zhongjinji
2025-08-21 9:32 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-08-25 14:12 ` zhongjinji
2025-08-15 14:41 ` Liam R. Howlett
2025-08-15 16:05 ` Liam R. Howlett
2025-08-14 23:13 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] mm/oom_kill: Only delay OOM reaper for processes using robust futexes Andrew Morton
2025-08-15 17:06 ` zhongjinji
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=20250818120819.26709-1-zhongjinji@honor.com \
--to=zhongjinji@honor.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andrealmeid@igalia.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=feng.han@honor.com \
--cc=liam.howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liulu.liu@honor.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=npache@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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