From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, oss-security@lists.openwall.com,
Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>,
Kees Cook <kees.cook@canonical.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, pageexec@freemail.hu,
Brad Spengler <spender@grsecurity.net>,
Eugene Teo <eugene@redhat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] oom: don't ignore rss in nascent mm
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:44:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100916174433.GA4842@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100916145710.3BBA.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
On 09/16, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> ChangeLog
> o since v1
> - Always use thread group leader's ->in_exec_mm.
Confused ;)
> +static unsigned long oom_rss_swap_usage(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *t = p;
> + struct task_struct *leader = p->group_leader;
> + unsigned long points = 0;
> +
> + do {
> + task_lock(t);
> + if (t->mm) {
> + points += get_mm_rss(t->mm);
> + points += get_mm_counter(t->mm, MM_SWAPENTS);
> + task_unlock(t);
> + break;
> + }
> + task_unlock(t);
> + } while_each_thread(p, t);
> +
> + /*
> + * If the process is in execve() processing, we have to concern
> + * about both old and new mm.
> + */
> + task_lock(leader);
> + if (leader->in_exec_mm) {
> + points += get_mm_rss(leader->in_exec_mm);
> + points += get_mm_counter(leader->in_exec_mm, MM_SWAPENTS);
> + }
> + task_unlock(leader);
> +
> + return points;
> +}
This patch relies on fact that we can't race with de_thread() (and btw
the change in de_thread() looks bogus). Then why ->in_exec_mm lives in
task_struct ?
To me, this looks a bit strange. I think we should either do not use
->group_leader to hold ->in_exec_mm like your previous patch did, or
move ->in_exec_mm into signal_struct. The previous 3/4 ensures that
only one thread can set ->in_exec_mm.
And I don't think oom_rss_swap_usage() should replace find_lock_task_mm()
in oom_badness(), I mean something like this:
static unsigned long oom_rss_swap_usage(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
return get_mm_rss(mm) + get_mm_counter(mm, MM_SWAPENTS);
}
unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, ...)
{
int points = 0;
if (unlikely(p->signal->in_exec_mm)) {
task_lock(p->group_leader);
if (p->signal->in_exec_mm)
points = oom_rss_swap_usage(p->signal->in_exec_mm);
task_unlock(p->group_leader);
}
p = find_lock_task_mm(p);
if (!p)
return points;
...
}
but this is the matter of taste.
What do you think?
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:[~2010-09-16 17:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-16 5:52 [PATCH 0/4] oom fixes for 2.6.36 KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-09-16 5:55 ` [PATCH 1/4] oom: remove totalpage normalization from oom_badness() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-09-16 6:36 ` David Rientjes
2010-09-16 6:57 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-09-16 7:47 ` Pekka Enberg
2010-09-16 5:55 ` [PATCH 2/4] Revert "oom: deprecate oom_adj tunable" KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-09-16 5:56 ` [PATCH 3/4] move cred_guard_mutex from task_struct to signal_struct KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-09-16 5:57 ` [PATCH 4/4] oom: don't ignore rss in nascent mm KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-09-16 17:44 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2010-09-27 2:50 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
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=20100916174433.GA4842@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=eugene@redhat.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kees.cook@canonical.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=oss-security@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=pageexec@freemail.hu \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=solar@openwall.com \
--cc=spender@grsecurity.net \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).