From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f198.google.com (mail-wr0-f198.google.com [209.85.128.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75E1F6B0038 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 09:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-f198.google.com with SMTP id y15so5965607wrc.6 for ; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 06:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from gum.cmpxchg.org (gum.cmpxchg.org. [85.214.110.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a2si325056edi.359.2017.12.01.06.56.44 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 01 Dec 2017 06:56:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 14:56:38 +0000 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm,oom: Move last second allocation to inside the OOM killer. Message-ID: <20171201145638.GA10280@cmpxchg.org> References: <1511607169-5084-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20171201143317.GC8097@cmpxchg.org> <20171201144634.sc4cn6hyyt6zawms@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171201144634.sc4cn6hyyt6zawms@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Tetsuo Handa , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrea Arcangeli On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 03:46:34PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 01-12-17 14:33:17, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 07:52:47PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > @@ -1068,6 +1071,17 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc) > > > } > > > > > > select_bad_process(oc); > > > + /* > > > + * Try really last second allocation attempt after we selected an OOM > > > + * victim, for somebody might have managed to free memory while we were > > > + * selecting an OOM victim which can take quite some time. > > > > Somebody might free some memory right after this attempt fails. OOM > > can always be a temporary state that resolves on its own. > > > > What keeps us from declaring OOM prematurely is the fact that we > > already scanned the entire LRU list without success, not last second > > or last-last second, or REALLY last-last-last-second allocations. > > You are right that this is inherently racy. The point here is, however, > that the race window between the last check and the kill can be _huge_! My point is that it's irrelevant. We already sampled the entire LRU list; compared to that, the delay before the kill is immaterial. > Another argument is that the allocator itself could have changed its > allocation capabilities - e.g. become the OOM victim itself since the > last time it the allocator could have reflected that fact. Can you outline how this would happen exactly? > > Nacked-by: Johannes Weiner -- 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