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 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.