linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] oom: oom_kill_process() need to check p is unkillable
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:00:32 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100621140032.GA2456@barrios-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100617135224.FBAA.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 08:45:45PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > 
> > > When oom_kill_allocating_task is enabled, an argument task of
> > > oom_kill_process is not selected by select_bad_process(), It's
> > > just out_of_memory() caller task. It mean the task can be
> > > unkillable. check it first.
> > > 
> > 
> > This should be unnecessary if oom_kill_process() appropriately returns 
> > non-zero when it cannot kill a task.  What problem are you addressing with 
> > this fix?
> 
> oom_kill_process() only check its children are unkillable, not its own.
> To add check oom_kill_process() also solve the issue. as my previous patch does.
> but Minchan pointed out it's unnecessary. because when !oom_kill_allocating_task
> case, we have the same check in select_bad_process(). 
> 
> 
> 

If kthread doesn't use other process's mm, oom_kill_process can return non-zero.
and it might be no problem. 
but let's consider following case that kthread use use_mm. 

if (oom_kill_allocating_task)
        oom_kill_process
                pr_err("kill process.."); <-- false alarm
                oom_kill_task
                        find_lock_task_mm if kthread use use_mm
                        kill kernel thread

Yes. it's a just theory that kthread use use_mm and is selected as victim.
But although kthread doesn't use use_mm, oom_kill_process emits false alarm.
As a matter of fact, it doesn't kill itself or sacrifice child.

I think victim process selection should be done before calling 
oom_kill_process. oom_kill_process and oom_kill_task's role is  
just to try to kill the process or process's children by best effort 
as function's name.

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2010-06-21 14:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-17  1:45 [PATCH 1/9] oom: don't try to kill oom_unkillable child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17  1:51 ` [PATCH 2/9] oom: oom_kill_process() doesn't select kthread child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-21 20:14   ` David Rientjes
2010-06-30  9:26     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17  1:51 ` [PATCH 3/9] oom: make oom_unkillable_task() helper function KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-21 20:15   ` David Rientjes
2010-06-30  9:26     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17  1:51 ` [PATCH 5/9] oom: cleanup has_intersects_mems_allowed() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17  4:20   ` David Rientjes
2010-06-21 11:45     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-21 20:09       ` David Rientjes
2010-06-30  9:26         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17  1:51 ` [PATCH 4/9] oom: oom_kill_process() need to check p is unkillable KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17  4:19   ` David Rientjes
2010-06-21 11:45     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-21 14:00       ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2010-06-21 20:04       ` David Rientjes
2010-06-30  9:26         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17  1:51 ` [PATCH 8/9] oom: give the dying task a higher priority KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17  1:51 ` [PATCH 6/9] oom: unify CAP_SYS_RAWIO check into other superuser check KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17  4:18   ` David Rientjes
2010-06-21 11:46     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17  1:51 ` [PATCH 7/9] oom: remove child->mm check from oom_kill_process() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17  1:51 ` [PATCH 9/9] oom: multi threaded process coredump don't make deadlock KOSAKI Motohiro
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-06-16 11:29 [PATCH 1/9] oom: don't try to kill oom_unkillable child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:32 ` [PATCH 4/9] oom: oom_kill_process() need to check p is unkillable KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:07   ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-17  1:51     ` 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=20100621140032.GA2456@barrios-desktop \
    --to=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --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 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).