From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
oleg@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, hughd@google.com,
andrea@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM-unkillable.
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:10:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160217131034.GH29196@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201602171933.HFD51078.LOSFVMFQFOJHOt@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On Wed 17-02-16 19:33:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >From 4924ca3031444bfb831b2d4f004e5a613ad48d68 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:35:12 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH 4/6] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM-unkillable.
>
> oom_scan_process_thread() returns OOM_SCAN_SELECT when there is a
> thread which returns oom_task_origin() == true. But it is possible
> that that thread is marked as OOM-unkillable.
>
> This patch changes oom_scan_process_thread() not to select it
> if it is marked as OOM-unkillable.
oom_task_origin is only swapoff and ksm_store right now. I seriously
doubt anybody sane will run them as OOM disabled (directly or
indirectly).
But you have a point that returing anything but OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE for
OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN from oom_scan_process_thread sounds suboptimal.
Sure such a check would be racy but do we actually care about a OOM vs.
oom_score_adj_write. I am dubious to say the least.
So wouldn't it make more sense to check for OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN at the
very top of oom_scan_process_thread instead?
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---
> mm/oom_kill.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index b0c327d..ebc6764 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -308,7 +308,8 @@ enum oom_scan_t oom_scan_process_thread(struct oom_control *oc,
> * If task is allocating a lot of memory and has been marked to be
> * killed first if it triggers an oom, then select it.
> */
> - if (oom_task_origin(task) && !test_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_MEMDIE))
> + if (oom_task_origin(task) && !test_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_MEMDIE) &&
> + task->signal->oom_score_adj != OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN)
> return OOM_SCAN_SELECT;
>
> return OOM_SCAN_OK;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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:[~2016-02-17 13:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-17 10:28 [PATCH 0/6] preparation for merging the OOM reaper Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 10:29 ` [PATCH 1/6] mm,oom: exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 12:41 ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 16:40 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 17:33 ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 20:55 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 10:30 ` [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 12:54 ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 13:07 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 14:00 ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 14:39 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 15:01 ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 15:29 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 16:17 ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-18 11:21 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 10:32 ` [PATCH 3/6] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM victims Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 13:02 ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 10:33 ` [PATCH 4/6] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM-unkillable Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 13:10 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-02-17 13:36 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 13:44 ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 10:34 ` [PATCH 5/6] mm,oom: Re-enable OOM killer using timers Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 13:20 ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-09 14:00 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-09 14:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 10:36 ` [PATCH 6/6] mm,oom: wait for OOM victims when using oom_kill_allocating_task == 1 Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 13:32 ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-18 10:45 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-18 12:20 ` Michal Hocko
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=20160217131034.GH29196@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andrea@kernel.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--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).