From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Kyle Walker <kwalker@redhat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com,
hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov@parallels.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Stanislav Kozina <skozina@redhat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:16:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150920131639.GC2104@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150919155819.GB9094@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 09/19, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Sat 19-09-15 17:03:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Stupid idea. Can't we help the memory hog to free its memory? This is
> > orthogonal to other improvements we can do.
> >
> > Please don't tell me the patch below is ugly, incomplete and suboptimal
> > in many ways, I know ;) I am not sure it is even correct. Just to explain
> > what I mean.
>
> Unmapping the memory for the oom victim has been already mentioned as a
> way to improve the OOM killer behavior. Nobody has implemented that yet
> though unfortunately. I have that on my TODO list since we have
> discussed it with Mel at LSF.
OK, good. So perhaps we should try to do this.
>
> > Perhaps oom_unmap_func() should only zap the anonymous vmas... and there
> > are a lot of other details which should be discussed if this can make any
> > sense.
>
> I have just returned from an internal conference so my head is
> completely cabbaged. I will have a look on Monday. From a quick look
> the idea is feasible. You cannot rely on the worker context because
> workqueues might be completely stuck with at this stage.
Yes this is true. See another email, probably oom-kill.c needs its own
kthread.
And again, we should actually try to avoid queue_work or queue_kthread_work
in any case. But not in the initial implementation. And initial implementation
could use workqueues, I think. I the likely case system_unbound_wq pool
should have an idle thread.
> You also cannot
> do take mmap_sem directly because that might be held already so you need
> a try_lock instead.
Still can't understand this part. See other emails, perhaps I missed
something.
> Focusing on anonymous vmas first sounds like a good
> idea to me because that would be simpler I guess.
And safer.
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>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Kyle Walker <kwalker@redhat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com,
hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov@parallels.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Stanislav Kozina <skozina@redhat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:16:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150920131639.GC2104@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150919155819.GB9094@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 09/19, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Sat 19-09-15 17:03:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Stupid idea. Can't we help the memory hog to free its memory? This is
> > orthogonal to other improvements we can do.
> >
> > Please don't tell me the patch below is ugly, incomplete and suboptimal
> > in many ways, I know ;) I am not sure it is even correct. Just to explain
> > what I mean.
>
> Unmapping the memory for the oom victim has been already mentioned as a
> way to improve the OOM killer behavior. Nobody has implemented that yet
> though unfortunately. I have that on my TODO list since we have
> discussed it with Mel at LSF.
OK, good. So perhaps we should try to do this.
>
> > Perhaps oom_unmap_func() should only zap the anonymous vmas... and there
> > are a lot of other details which should be discussed if this can make any
> > sense.
>
> I have just returned from an internal conference so my head is
> completely cabbaged. I will have a look on Monday. From a quick look
> the idea is feasible. You cannot rely on the worker context because
> workqueues might be completely stuck with at this stage.
Yes this is true. See another email, probably oom-kill.c needs its own
kthread.
And again, we should actually try to avoid queue_work or queue_kthread_work
in any case. But not in the initial implementation. And initial implementation
could use workqueues, I think. I the likely case system_unbound_wq pool
should have an idle thread.
> You also cannot
> do take mmap_sem directly because that might be held already so you need
> a try_lock instead.
Still can't understand this part. See other emails, perhaps I missed
something.
> Focusing on anonymous vmas first sounds like a good
> idea to me because that would be simpler I guess.
And safer.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-20 13:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 213+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-17 17:59 [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks Kyle Walker
2015-09-17 17:59 ` Kyle Walker
2015-09-17 19:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-17 19:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-18 15:41 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-09-18 15:41 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-09-18 16:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-18 16:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-18 16:39 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-18 16:39 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-18 16:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-18 16:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-18 17:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-09-18 17:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-09-18 19:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-18 19:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-18 19:19 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-09-18 19:19 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-09-18 21:28 ` Kyle Walker
2015-09-18 22:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-09-18 22:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-09-19 8:32 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-19 8:32 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-19 14:33 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-19 14:33 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-19 15:51 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-19 15:51 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-21 23:33 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-21 23:33 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-22 5:33 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-22 5:33 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-22 23:32 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-22 23:32 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-23 12:03 ` Kyle Walker
2015-09-23 12:03 ` Kyle Walker
2015-09-24 11:50 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-24 11:50 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-19 14:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-19 14:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-21 23:27 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-21 23:27 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-19 8:25 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-19 8:25 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-19 8:22 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-19 8:22 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-21 23:08 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-21 23:08 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-19 15:03 ` can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-19 15:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-19 15:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-19 15:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-19 15:58 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-19 15:58 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-20 13:16 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2015-09-20 13:16 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-19 22:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-19 22:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-19 22:54 ` Raymond Jennings
2015-09-19 23:00 ` Raymond Jennings
2015-09-19 23:00 ` Raymond Jennings
2015-09-19 23:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-19 23:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-20 9:33 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-20 9:33 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-20 13:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-20 13:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-20 12:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-20 12:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-20 18:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-20 18:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-20 18:21 ` Raymond Jennings
2015-09-20 18:23 ` Raymond Jennings
2015-09-20 19:07 ` Raymond Jennings
2015-09-20 19:07 ` Raymond Jennings
2015-09-21 13:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-21 13:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-21 13:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-21 13:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-21 14:24 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-21 14:24 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-21 15:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-21 15:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-21 16:12 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-21 16:12 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-22 16:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-22 16:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-22 23:04 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-22 23:04 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-23 20:59 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-23 20:59 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-24 21:15 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-24 21:15 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-25 9:35 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-25 9:35 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-25 16:14 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-25 16:14 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-28 16:18 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-28 16:18 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-28 22:28 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-28 22:28 ` David Rientjes
2015-10-02 12:36 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-02 12:36 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-02 19:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-02 19:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-05 14:44 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-05 14:44 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-07 5:16 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-10-07 5:16 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-10-07 10:43 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-07 10:43 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-08 9:40 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-10-08 9:40 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-10-06 7:55 ` Eric W. Biederman
2015-10-06 7:55 ` Eric W. Biederman
2015-10-06 8:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-06 8:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-06 8:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-06 8:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-06 14:52 ` Eric W. Biederman
2015-10-06 14:52 ` Eric W. Biederman
2015-10-03 6:02 ` Can't we use timeout based OOM warning/killing? Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-03 6:02 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-06 14:51 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-06 14:51 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-12 6:43 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-12 6:43 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-12 15:25 ` Silent hang up caused by pages being not scanned? Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-12 15:25 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-12 21:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-12 21:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-13 12:21 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-13 12:21 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-13 16:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-13 16:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-14 12:21 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-14 12:21 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-15 13:14 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-15 13:14 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-16 15:57 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-16 15:57 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-16 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-16 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-16 18:49 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-16 18:49 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-19 12:57 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-19 12:57 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-19 12:53 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-19 12:53 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-13 13:32 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-13 13:32 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-13 16:19 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-13 16:19 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-14 13:22 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-14 13:22 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-14 14:38 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-14 14:38 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-14 14:59 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-14 14:59 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-14 15:06 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-14 15:06 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-26 11:44 ` Newbie's question: memory allocation when reclaiming memory Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-26 11:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-11-05 8:46 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-11-05 8:46 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-10-06 15:25 ` Can't we use timeout based OOM warning/killing? Linus Torvalds
2015-10-08 15:33 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-08 15:33 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-10 12:50 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-10 12:50 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-28 22:24 ` can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? David Rientjes
2015-09-28 22:24 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-29 7:57 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-29 7:57 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-29 22:56 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-29 22:56 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-30 4:25 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-30 4:25 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-30 10:21 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-30 10:21 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-30 21:11 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-30 21:11 ` David Rientjes
2015-10-01 12:13 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-01 12:13 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-01 14:48 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-01 14:48 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-02 13:06 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-02 13:06 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-06 18:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-10-06 18:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-10-07 11:03 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-07 11:03 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-07 12:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-10-07 12:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-10-08 14:04 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-08 14:04 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-08 14:01 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-08 14:01 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-21 16:51 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-21 16:51 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-22 12:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-22 12:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-22 14:30 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-22 14:30 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-22 14:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-22 14:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-21 23:42 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-21 23:42 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-21 16:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-21 16:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-20 14:50 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-20 14:50 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-20 14:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-20 14:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20150920131639.GC2104@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kwalker@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=skozina@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.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.