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: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Revert "oom: give the dying task a higher priority"
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:27:57 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110324152757.GC1938@barrios-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110322200657.B064.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:06:48PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> This reverts commit 93b43fa55088fe977503a156d1097cc2055449a2.
> 
> The commit dramatically improve oom killer logic when fork-bomb
> occur. But, I've found it has nasty corner case. Now cpu cgroup
> has strange default RT runtime. It's 0! That said, if a process
> under cpu cgroup promote RT scheduling class, the process never
> run at all.
> 
> Eventually, kernel may hang up when oom kill occur.
> 
> The author need to resubmit it as adding knob and disabled
> by default if he really need this feature.
> 
> Cc: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lclaudio@uudg.org>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>

Just a comment below.

> ---
>  mm/oom_kill.c |   27 ---------------------------
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 3100bc5..739dee4 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -84,24 +84,6 @@ static bool has_intersects_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk,
>  #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */
>  
>  /*
> - * If this is a system OOM (not a memcg OOM) and the task selected to be
> - * killed is not already running at high (RT) priorities, speed up the
> - * recovery by boosting the dying task to the lowest FIFO priority.
> - * That helps with the recovery and avoids interfering with RT tasks.
> - */
> -static void boost_dying_task_prio(struct task_struct *p,
> -				  struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> -{
> -	struct sched_param param = { .sched_priority = 1 };
> -
> -	if (mem)
> -		return;
> -
> -	if (!rt_task(p))
> -		sched_setscheduler_nocheck(p, SCHED_FIFO, &param);
> -}
> -
> -/*
>   * The process p may have detached its own ->mm while exiting or through
>   * use_mm(), but one or more of its subthreads may still have a valid
>   * pointer.  Return p, or any of its subthreads with a valid ->mm, with
> @@ -452,13 +434,6 @@ static int oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem)
>  	set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
>  	force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * We give our sacrificial lamb high priority and access to
> -	 * all the memory it needs. That way it should be able to
> -	 * exit() and clear out its resources quickly...
> -	 */
> -	boost_dying_task_prio(p, mem);
> -

Before merging 93b43fa5508, we had a following routine.

+static int oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem)
 {
        p = find_lock_task_mm(p);
        if (!p) {
@@ -434,9 +452,17 @@ static int oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p)
                K(get_mm_counter(p->mm, MM_FILEPAGES)));
        task_unlock(p);
 
-       p->rt.time_slice = HZ; <<---- THIS
+
        set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
        force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
+
+       /*
+        * We give our sacrificial lamb high priority and access to
+        * all the memory it needs. That way it should be able to
+        * exit() and clear out its resources quickly...
+        */
+       boost_dying_task_prio(p, mem);
+
        return 0;
 }

At that time, I thought that routine is meaningless in non-RT scheduler.
So I Cced Peter but don't get the answer.
I just want to confirm it.

Do you still think it's meaningless? 
so you remove it when you revert 93b43fa5508?
Then, this isn't just revert patch but revert + killing meaningless code patch.


- 
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-03-24 15:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20110314232156.0c363813.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
     [not found] ` <20110315153801.3526.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
2011-03-22 11:04   ` [patch 0/5] oom: a few anti fork bomb patches KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 11:05     ` [PATCH 1/5] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 14:49       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  5:21         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  6:59           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  7:13             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  8:24               ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  8:44                 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  9:02                   ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  2:11                     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  2:21                       ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-24  2:48                         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  3:04                           ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-24  5:35                             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  4:19                       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  5:35                         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  5:53                           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  6:16                             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  6:32                               ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  7:03                                 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  7:25                                   ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  7:28                                     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  7:34                                       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  7:41                                         ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  7:43                                         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  7:43                           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  7:41       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-23  7:55         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 11:06     ` [PATCH 2/5] Revert "oom: give the dying task a higher priority" KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  7:42       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-23 13:40         ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2011-03-24  0:06           ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24 15:27       ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2011-03-28  9:48         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-28 12:28           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28  9:51         ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-28 12:21           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28 12:28             ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-28 12:40               ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28 13:10                 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2011-03-28 13:18                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-28 13:56                     ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2011-03-29  2:46                     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-28 13:48                   ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-22 11:08     ` [PATCH 3/5] oom: create oom autogroup KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 23:21       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  1:27         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  2:41           ` Mike Galbraith
2011-03-22 11:08     ` [PATCH 4/5] mm: introduce wait_on_page_locked_killable KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  7:44       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-24 15:04       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-22 11:09     ` [PATCH 5/5] x86,mm: make pagefault killable KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  7:49       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-23  8:09         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23 14:34           ` Linus Torvalds
2011-03-24 15:10       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24 17:13       ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-03-24 17:34         ` Linus Torvalds
2011-03-28  7:00           ` 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=20110324152757.GC1938@barrios-desktop \
    --to=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=avagin@openvz.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=lclaudio@uudg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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).