From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
anfei <anfei.zhou@gmail.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] proc: don't take ->siglock for /proc/pid/oom_adj
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:59:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100331185950.GB11635@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003301329420.5234@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On 03/30, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > ->siglock is no longer needed to access task->signal, change
> > oom_adjust_read() and oom_adjust_write() to read/write oom_adj
> > lockless.
> >
> > Yes, this means that "echo 2 >oom_adj" and "echo 1 >oom_adj"
> > can race and the second write can win, but I hope this is OK.
>
> Ok, but could you base this on -mm at
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/ since an additional tunable has
> been added (oom_score_adj), which does the same thing?
David, I just can't understand why
oom-badness-heuristic-rewrite.patch
duplicates the related code in fs/proc/base.c and why it preserves
the deprecated signal->oom_adj.
OK. Please forget about lock_task_sighand/signal issues. Can't we kill
signal->oom_adj and create a single helper for both
/proc/pid/{oom_adj,oom_score_adj} ?
static ssize_t oom_any_adj_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
size_t count, bool deprecated_mode)
{
struct task_struct *task;
char buffer[PROC_NUMBUF];
unsigned long flags;
long oom_score_adj;
int err;
memset(buffer, 0, sizeof(buffer));
if (count > sizeof(buffer) - 1)
count = sizeof(buffer) - 1;
if (copy_from_user(buffer, buf, count))
return -EFAULT;
err = strict_strtol(strstrip(buffer), 0, &oom_score_adj);
if (err)
return -EINVAL;
if (depraceted_mode) {
if (oom_score_adj == OOM_ADJUST_MAX)
oom_score_adj = OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX;
else
oom_score_adj = (oom_score_adj * OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX) /
-OOM_DISABLE;
}
if (oom_score_adj < OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN ||
oom_score_adj > OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX)
return -EINVAL;
task = get_proc_task(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode);
if (!task)
return -ESRCH;
if (!lock_task_sighand(task, &flags)) {
put_task_struct(task);
return -ESRCH;
}
if (oom_score_adj < task->signal->oom_score_adj &&
!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
unlock_task_sighand(task, &flags);
put_task_struct(task);
return -EACCES;
}
task->signal->oom_score_adj = oom_score_adj;
unlock_task_sighand(task, &flags);
put_task_struct(task);
return count;
}
This is just the current oom_score_adj_read() + "if (depraceted_mode)"
which does oom_adj -> oom_score_adj conversion.
Now,
static ssize_t oom_adjust_write(...)
{
printk_once(KERN_WARNING "... deprecated ...\n");
return oom_any_adj_write(..., true);
}
static ssize_t oom_score_adj_write(...)
{
return oom_any_adj_write(..., false);
}
The same for oom_xxx_read().
What is the point to keep signal->oom_adj ?
Oleg.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
anfei <anfei.zhou@gmail.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] proc: don't take ->siglock for /proc/pid/oom_adj
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:59:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100331185950.GB11635@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003301329420.5234@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On 03/30, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > ->siglock is no longer needed to access task->signal, change
> > oom_adjust_read() and oom_adjust_write() to read/write oom_adj
> > lockless.
> >
> > Yes, this means that "echo 2 >oom_adj" and "echo 1 >oom_adj"
> > can race and the second write can win, but I hope this is OK.
>
> Ok, but could you base this on -mm at
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/ since an additional tunable has
> been added (oom_score_adj), which does the same thing?
David, I just can't understand why
oom-badness-heuristic-rewrite.patch
duplicates the related code in fs/proc/base.c and why it preserves
the deprecated signal->oom_adj.
OK. Please forget about lock_task_sighand/signal issues. Can't we kill
signal->oom_adj and create a single helper for both
/proc/pid/{oom_adj,oom_score_adj} ?
static ssize_t oom_any_adj_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
size_t count, bool deprecated_mode)
{
struct task_struct *task;
char buffer[PROC_NUMBUF];
unsigned long flags;
long oom_score_adj;
int err;
memset(buffer, 0, sizeof(buffer));
if (count > sizeof(buffer) - 1)
count = sizeof(buffer) - 1;
if (copy_from_user(buffer, buf, count))
return -EFAULT;
err = strict_strtol(strstrip(buffer), 0, &oom_score_adj);
if (err)
return -EINVAL;
if (depraceted_mode) {
if (oom_score_adj == OOM_ADJUST_MAX)
oom_score_adj = OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX;
else
oom_score_adj = (oom_score_adj * OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX) /
-OOM_DISABLE;
}
if (oom_score_adj < OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN ||
oom_score_adj > OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX)
return -EINVAL;
task = get_proc_task(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode);
if (!task)
return -ESRCH;
if (!lock_task_sighand(task, &flags)) {
put_task_struct(task);
return -ESRCH;
}
if (oom_score_adj < task->signal->oom_score_adj &&
!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
unlock_task_sighand(task, &flags);
put_task_struct(task);
return -EACCES;
}
task->signal->oom_score_adj = oom_score_adj;
unlock_task_sighand(task, &flags);
put_task_struct(task);
return count;
}
This is just the current oom_score_adj_read() + "if (depraceted_mode)"
which does oom_adj -> oom_score_adj conversion.
Now,
static ssize_t oom_adjust_write(...)
{
printk_once(KERN_WARNING "... deprecated ...\n");
return oom_any_adj_write(..., true);
}
static ssize_t oom_score_adj_write(...)
{
return oom_any_adj_write(..., false);
}
The same for oom_xxx_read().
What is the point to keep signal->oom_adj ?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-31 19:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 197+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-24 16:25 [PATCH] oom killer: break from infinite loop Anfei Zhou
2010-03-24 16:25 ` Anfei Zhou
2010-03-25 2:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-03-25 2:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-03-26 22:08 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-26 22:08 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-26 22:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-26 22:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-28 14:55 ` anfei
2010-03-28 14:55 ` anfei
2010-03-28 16:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-28 16:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-28 21:21 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-28 21:21 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-29 11:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-29 11:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-29 20:49 ` [patch] oom: give current access to memory reserves if it has been killed David Rientjes
2010-03-29 20:49 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-30 15:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 15:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 20:26 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-30 20:26 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 17:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 17:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 20:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 20:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 8:35 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 8:35 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 8:57 ` [patch -mm] oom: hold tasklist_lock when dumping tasks David Rientjes
2010-04-01 14:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 19:16 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 13:59 ` [patch] oom: give current access to memory reserves if it has been killed Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 14:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 19:12 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 19:12 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 11:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 11:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:30 ` [PATCH -mm 0/4] oom: linux has threads Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:31 ` [PATCH -mm 1/4] oom: select_bad_process: check PF_KTHREAD instead of !mm to skip kthreads Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 19:05 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:05 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 18:32 ` [PATCH -mm 2/4] oom: select_bad_process: PF_EXITING check should take ->mm into account Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-06 11:42 ` anfei
2010-04-06 11:42 ` anfei
2010-04-06 12:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-06 12:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-06 13:05 ` anfei
2010-04-06 13:05 ` anfei
2010-04-06 13:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-06 13:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:32 ` [PATCH -mm 3/4] oom: introduce find_lock_task_mm() to fix !mm false positives Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:33 ` [PATCH -mm 4/4] oom: oom_forkbomb_penalty: move thread_group_cputime() out of task_lock() Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 18:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 19:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-05 14:23 ` [PATCH -mm] oom: select_bad_process: never choose tasks with badness == 0 Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-05 14:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 19:02 ` [patch] oom: give current access to memory reserves if it has been killed David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:02 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 19:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 19:46 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:46 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:54 ` [patch -mm] oom: exclude tasks with badness score of 0 from being selected David Rientjes
2010-04-02 19:54 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 21:04 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 21:04 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 21:22 ` [patch -mm v2] " David Rientjes
2010-04-02 21:22 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 20:55 ` [patch] oom: give current access to memory reserves if it has been killed Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-02 20:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 21:07 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 21:07 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 22:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 22:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 23:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 23:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 23:48 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 23:48 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 14:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 14:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 18:58 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 18:58 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 8:25 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 8:25 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 15:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 15:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-08 21:08 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-08 21:08 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-09 12:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-09 12:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 16:39 ` [PATCH] oom: fix the unsafe proc_oom_score()->badness() call Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 16:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 17:43 ` [PATCH -mm] proc: don't take ->siglock for /proc/pid/oom_adj Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 17:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-30 20:30 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-30 20:30 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 9:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 9:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 18:59 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2010-03-31 18:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 21:14 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 21:14 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 23:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 23:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 8:32 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 8:32 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 15:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 15:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 19:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 19:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-30 20:32 ` [PATCH] oom: fix the unsafe proc_oom_score()->badness() call David Rientjes
2010-03-30 20:32 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 9:16 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 9:16 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 20:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-31 20:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 7:41 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 7:41 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 13:13 ` [PATCH 0/1] oom: fix the unsafe usage of badness() in proc_oom_score() Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 13:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 13:13 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 13:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-01 19:03 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-01 19:03 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-29 14:06 ` [PATCH] oom killer: break from infinite loop anfei
2010-03-29 14:06 ` anfei
2010-03-29 20:01 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-29 20:01 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-30 14:29 ` anfei
2010-03-30 14:29 ` anfei
2010-03-30 20:29 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-30 20:29 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 0:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 0:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 6:07 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 6:07 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 6:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 6:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 6:30 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-31 6:30 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-31 6:31 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 6:31 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 7:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 7:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 6:32 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 6:32 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-31 7:08 ` [patch -mm] memcg: make oom killer a no-op when no killable task can be found David Rientjes
2010-03-31 7:08 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-31 8:04 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-31 10:38 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-04 23:28 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-05 21:30 ` Andrew Morton
2010-04-05 22:40 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-05 22:49 ` Andrew Morton
2010-04-05 23:01 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-06 12:08 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-04-06 21:47 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-07 0:20 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-07 13:29 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-04-08 18:05 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-21 19:17 ` Andrew Morton
2010-04-21 22:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-22 0:23 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-22 8:34 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-27 22:58 ` [patch -mm] oom: reintroduce and deprecate oom_kill_allocating_task David Rientjes
2010-04-28 0:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-22 7:23 ` [patch -mm] memcg: make oom killer a no-op when no killable task can be found Nick Piggin
2010-04-22 7:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-22 10:09 ` Nick Piggin
2010-04-22 10:27 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-22 21:11 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-22 10:28 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-22 15:39 ` Nick Piggin
2010-04-22 21:09 ` David Rientjes
2010-05-04 23:55 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-08 17:36 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-02 10:17 ` [PATCH] oom killer: break from infinite loop Mel Gorman
2010-04-02 10:17 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-04 23:26 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-04 23:26 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-05 10:47 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-05 10:47 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-06 22:40 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-06 22:40 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-29 11:31 ` anfei
2010-03-29 11:31 ` anfei
2010-03-29 11:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-29 11:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-29 12:09 ` anfei
2010-03-29 12:09 ` anfei
2010-03-28 2:46 ` David Rientjes
2010-03-28 2:46 ` David Rientjes
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=20100331185950.GB11635@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anfei.zhou@gmail.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.