From: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@honor.com>
To: <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.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>, <mhocko@suse.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 3/3] mm/oom_kill: Have the OOM reaper and exit_mmap() traverse the maple tree in opposite orders
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 22:12:24 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250825141224.2108-1-zhongjinji@honor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c2b5c573-c0a3-4063-9a79-d3b06a615fe2@lucifer.local>
> >
> > |--99.74%-- oom_reaper
> > | |--76.67%-- unmap_page_range
> > | | |--33.70%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
> > | | | |--98.46%-- _raw_spin_lock
> > | | |--27.61%-- free_swap_and_cache_nr
> > | | |--16.40%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> > | | |--12.25%-- tlb_flush_mmu
> > | |--12.61%-- tlb_finish_mmu
> >
> >
> > |--98.84%-- oom_reaper
> > | |--53.45%-- unmap_page_range
> > | | |--24.29%-- [hit in function]
> > | | |--48.06%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> > | | |--17.99%-- tlb_flush_mmu
> > | | |--1.72%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
> > | |
> > | |--30.43%-- tlb_finish_mmu
>
> Right yes thanks for providing this.
>
> I'm still not convinced by this approach however, it feels like you're papering
> over a crack for a problematic hack that needs to be solved at a different
> level.
>
> It feels like the whole waiting around thing is a hack to paper over something
> and then we're introducing another hack to make that work in a specific
> scenario.
>
> I also am not clear (perhaps you answered it elsewhere) how you're encountering
> this at a scale for it to be a meaningful issue?
On low-memory Android devices, high memory pressure often requires killing
processes to free memory, which is generally accepted on Android. When
killing a process on Android, there is also an asynchronous process reap
mechanism, which is implemented through process_mrelease, similar to the
oom reaper. OOM events are also not rare. Therefore, it makes sense to
reduce the load on the reaper.
> Also not sure we should be changing core mm to support perf issues with using an
> effectively-deprecated interface (cgroup v1)?
Yeah, it is not that appealing.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-25 14:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-14 13:55 [PATCH v4 0/3] mm/oom_kill: Only delay OOM reaper for processes using robust futexes 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
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 [this message]
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=20250825141224.2108-1-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=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.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