linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>
To: Jinjiang Tu <tujinjiang@huawei.com>
Cc: mhocko@suse.com, rientjes@google.com, shakeel.butt@linux.dev,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com, ziy@nvidia.com,
	matthew.brost@intel.com, joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com,
	rakie.kim@sk.com, byungchul@sk.com, gourry@gourry.net,
	ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com, apopple@nvidia.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: kill current in OOM when binding to cpu-less nodes
Date: Thu,  4 Sep 2025 07:26:25 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250904142626.1146459-1-joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250904134431.1637701-1-tujinjiang@huawei.com>

On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 21:44:31 +0800 Jinjiang Tu <tujinjiang@huawei.com> wrote:

Hello Jinjiang,

I hope you are doing well, thank you for this patchset!

> out_of_memory() selects tasks without considering mempolicy. Assuming a
> cpu-less NUMA Node, ordinary process that don't set mempolicy don't
> allocate memory from this cpu-less Node, unless other NUMA Nodes are below
> low watermark. If a task binds to this cpu-less Node and triggers OOM, many
> tasks may be killed wrongly that don't occupy memory from this Node.

I am wondeirng whether you have seen this happen in practice, or if this is
just based on inspecting the code. I have a feeling that the case you are
concerned about may already be covered in select_bad_process.

out_of_memory(oc)
    select_bad_process(oc)
        oom_evaluate_task(p, oc)
	    oom_cpuset_eligible(task, oc)
	    
	        [...snip...]

		for_each_thread(start, tsk) {
		    if (mask) {
		        ret = mempolicy_in_oom_domain(tsk, mask);
		    } else {
		        ret = cpuset_mems_allowed_intersects(current, tsk)
		    }
		}

While iterating through the list of candidate processes, we check whether
oc->nodemask exists, and if not, we check if the nodemasks intersects. It seems
like these are the two checks that you add in the helper function.

With that said, I might be missing something obvious -- please feel to
correct me if I am misunderstanding your patch or if I'm missing something
in the existing oom target selection : -)

I do see that with your patch, we avoid having to go through select_bad_process
and we just go straight to choosing the current task, which I can definitely
see as an argument. But in that case I think this patch's description would be
more of an optimization, and less of a fix since the behavior is already
accounted for.

Again, please feel free to correct me : -) I hope you have a great day!
Joshua

Sent using hkml (https://github.com/sjp38/hackermail)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-09-04 14:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-04 13:44 Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-04 14:25 ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-05  1:56   ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-05  8:08     ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-05  8:18       ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-05  9:10         ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-05  9:25           ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-05  9:42             ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-06  1:56               ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-08  7:46                 ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-08  8:16                   ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-08  9:11                     ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-08 11:07                       ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-08 11:13                       ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-08 11:26                         ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-05  9:13   ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-04 14:26 ` Joshua Hahn [this message]
2025-09-04 14:36   ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-04 14:43     ` Joshua Hahn
2025-09-05  2:05       ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-08 17:50 ` Gregory Price

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=20250904142626.1146459-1-joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
    --to=joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
    --cc=byungchul@sk.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=gourry@gourry.net \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=rakie.kim@sk.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
    --cc=tujinjiang@huawei.com \
    --cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
    --cc=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=ziy@nvidia.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