From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v4 1/4] mm, oom: refactor the TIF_MEMDIE usage
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:24:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170726142434.GT2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170726140607.GA20062@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
On Wed 26-07-17 15:06:07, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 03:56:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 26-07-17 14:27:15, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > @@ -656,13 +658,24 @@ static void mark_oom_victim(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
> > >
> > > WARN_ON(oom_killer_disabled);
> > > - /* OOM killer might race with memcg OOM */
> > > - if (test_and_set_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_MEMDIE))
> > > +
> > > + if (!cmpxchg(&tif_memdie_owner, NULL, current)) {
> > > + struct task_struct *t;
> > > +
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > + for_each_thread(current, t)
> > > + set_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_MEMDIE);
> > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > + }
> >
> > I would realy much rather see we limit the amount of memory reserves oom
> > victims can consume rather than build on top of the current hackish
> > approach of limiting the number of tasks because the fundamental problem
> > is still there (a heavy multithreaded process can still deplete the
> > reserves completely).
> >
> > Is there really any reason to not go with the existing patch I've
> > pointed to the last time around? You didn't seem to have any objects
> > back then.
>
> Hi Michal!
>
> I had this patch in mind and mentioned in the commit log, that TIF_MEMDIE
> as an memory reserves access indicator will probably be eliminated later.
>
> But that patch is not upstream yet, and it's directly related to the theme.
> The proposed refactoring of TIF_MEMDIE usage is not against your approach,
> and will not make harder to go this way further.
So what is the reason to invent another tricky way to limit access to
memory reserves? The patch is not upstream but nothin prevents you from
picking it up and post along with your series. Or if you prefer I can
post it separately?
> I'm slightly concerned about an idea to give TIF_MEMDIE to all tasks
> in case we're killing a really large cgroup.
Why? There shouldn't be any issue if the access is limited.
--
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:[~2017-07-26 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-26 13:27 [v4 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-07-26 13:27 ` [v4 1/4] mm, oom: refactor the TIF_MEMDIE usage Roman Gushchin
2017-07-26 13:56 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-26 14:06 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-07-26 14:24 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-07-26 14:44 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-26 14:50 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-07-26 13:27 ` [v4 2/4] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-07-27 21:41 ` kbuild test robot
2017-08-01 14:54 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-01 15:25 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-01 17:03 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-01 18:13 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-02 7:29 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-03 12:47 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-03 13:01 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-08 23:06 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-14 12:03 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-07-26 13:27 ` [v4 3/4] mm, oom: introduce oom_priority for memory cgroups Roman Gushchin
2017-08-08 23:14 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-14 12:39 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-07-26 13:27 ` [v4 4/4] mm, oom, docs: describe the cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-08-08 23:24 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-14 12:28 ` Roman Gushchin
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=20170726142434.GT2981@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.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