From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@honor.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, andrealmeid@igalia.com,
dave@stgolabs.net, dvhart@infradead.org, feng.han@honor.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
Subject: Re: [[PATCH v2] 2/2] futex: Only delay OOM reaper for processes using robust futex
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 08:18:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aJGiHyTXS_BqxoK2@tiehlicka> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aJChI-LMwmuWEwpH@tiehlicka>
On Mon 04-08-25 14:01:40, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 04-08-25 19:50:37, zhongjinji wrote:
> > >On Fri 01-08-25 23:36:49, zhongjinji@honor.com wrote:
> > >> From: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@honor.com>
> > >>
> > >> After merging the patch
> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220414144042.677008-1-npache@redhat.com/T/#u,
> > >> the OOM reaper runs less frequently because many processes exit within 2 seconds.
> > >>
> > >> However, when a process is killed, timely handling by the OOM reaper allows
> > >> its memory to be freed faster.
> > >>
> > >> Since relatively few processes use robust futex, delaying the OOM reaper for
> > >> all processes is undesirable, as many killed processes cannot release memory
> > >> more quickly.
> > >
> > >Could you elaborate more about why this is really needed? OOM should be
> > >a very slow path. Why do you care about this potential improvement in
> > >that situation? In other words what is the usecase?
> >
> > Well, We are using the cgroup v1 freezer. When a frozen process is
> > killed, it cannot exit immediately and is blocked in __refrigerator until
> > it is thawed. When the process cannot be thawed in time, it will result in
> > increased system memory pressure.
>
> This is an important information to be part of the changelog! It is also
> important to note why don't you care about processes that have robust
> mutexes. Is this purely a probabilistic improvement because those are
> less common?
>
> TBH I find this to be really hackish and justification based on cgroup
> v1 (which is considered legacy) doesn't make it particularly appealing.
Btw. have you considered to simply not impose any delay for _all_ frozen
tasks?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-05 6:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-01 15:36 [[PATCH v2] 1/2] futex: Add check_robust_futex to verify process usage of robust_futex zhongjinji
2025-08-01 15:36 ` [[PATCH v2] 2/2] futex: Only delay OOM reaper for processes using robust futex zhongjinji
2025-08-04 5:52 ` Michal Hocko
2025-08-04 11:50 ` zhongjinji
2025-08-04 12:01 ` Michal Hocko
2025-08-05 6:18 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2025-08-05 14:55 ` zhongjinji
2025-08-05 13:19 ` zhongjinji
2025-08-05 16:02 ` [[PATCH v2] 1/2] futex: Add check_robust_futex to verify process usage of robust_futex Thomas Gleixner
2025-08-12 13:21 ` 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=aJGiHyTXS_BqxoK2@tiehlicka \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andrealmeid@igalia.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=feng.han@honor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liulu.liu@honor.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 \
--cc=zhongjinji@honor.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