From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A2486B0258 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 03:09:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id a4so13074986wme.1 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:09:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (mail-wm0-f50.google.com. [74.125.82.50]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lm2si8387761wjc.202.2016.02.18.00.09.10 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:09:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id c200so13799826wme.0 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:09:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:09:09 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM-unkillable. Message-ID: <20160218080909.GA18149@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1455719460-7690-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Tetsuo Handa , akpm@linux-foundation.org, 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 On Wed 17-02-16 14:31:54, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > oom_scan_process_thread() returns OOM_SCAN_SELECT when there is a > > thread which returns oom_task_origin() == true. But it is possible > > that such thread is marked as OOM-unkillable. In that case, the OOM > > killer must not select such process. > > > > Since it is meaningless to return OOM_SCAN_OK for OOM-unkillable > > process because subsequent oom_badness() call will return 0, this > > patch changes oom_scan_process_thread to return OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE > > if that process is marked as OOM-unkillable (regardless of > > oom_task_origin()). > > > > Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa > > Suggested-by: Michal Hocko > > --- > > mm/oom_kill.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > > index 7653055..cf87153 100644 > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ enum oom_scan_t oom_scan_process_thread(struct oom_control *oc, > > if (!is_sysrq_oom(oc)) > > return OOM_SCAN_ABORT; > > } > > - if (!task->mm) > > + if (!task->mm || task->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN) > > return OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE; > > > > /* > > I'm getting multiple emails from you with the identical patch, something > is definitely wacky in your toolchain. > > Anyway, this is NACK'd since task->signal->oom_score_adj is checked under > task_lock() for threads with memory attached, that's the purpose of > finding the correct thread in oom_badness() and taking task_lock(). We > aren't going to duplicate logic in several functions that all do the same > thing. Is the task_lock really necessary, though? E.g. oom_task_origin() doesn't seem to depend on it for task->signal safety. If you are referring to races with changing oom_score_adj does such a race matter at all? To me this looks like a reasonable cleanup because we _know_ that OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN means OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE and do not really have to go down to oom_badness to find that out. Or what am I missing? -- 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: email@kvack.org