linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>
Cc: Jinjiang Tu <tujinjiang@huawei.com>,
	rientjes@google.com, shakeel.butt@linux.dev,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com, ziy@nvidia.com,
	matthew.brost@intel.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 16:36:28 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aLmj7ObmiNQt_6RB@tiehlicka> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250904142626.1146459-1-joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>

On Thu 04-09-25 07:26:25, Joshua Hahn wrote:
> 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 : -)

The thing with mempolicy_in_oom_domain is that it doesn't really do what
you might be thinking it is doing ;) as it will true also for tasks
without any NUMA affinity because those intersect with the given mask by
definition as they can allocate from any node. So they are eligible and
that is what Jinjiang Tu is considered about I believe.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


  reply	other threads:[~2025-09-04 14:36 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
2025-09-04 14:36   ` Michal Hocko [this message]
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=aLmj7ObmiNQt_6RB@tiehlicka \
    --to=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
    --cc=byungchul@sk.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=gourry@gourry.net \
    --cc=joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=matthew.brost@intel.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