linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>,
	"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	rientjes@google.com
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg: fix oom killer kills a task in other cgroup
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 01:30:49 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <28c262361002050830m7519f1c3y8860540708527fc0@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100205093932.1dcdeb5f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>

Hi, Kame.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 9:39 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Please take this patch in different context with recent discussion.
> This is a quick-fix for a terrible bug.
>
> This patch itself is against mmotm but can be easily applied to mainline or
> stable tree, I think. (But I don't CC stable tree until I get ack.)
>
> ==
> Now, oom-killer kills process's chidlren at first. But this means
> a child in other cgroup can be killed. But it's not checked now.
>
> This patch fixes that.
>
> CC: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> CC: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  mm/oom_kill.c |    3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> Index: mmotm-2.6.33-Feb03/mm/oom_kill.c
> ===================================================================
> --- mmotm-2.6.33-Feb03.orig/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ mmotm-2.6.33-Feb03/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -459,6 +459,9 @@ static int oom_kill_process(struct task_
>        list_for_each_entry(c, &p->children, sibling) {
>                if (c->mm == p->mm)
>                        continue;
> +               /* Children may be in other cgroup */
> +               if (mem && !task_in_mem_cgroup(c, mem))
> +                       continue;
>                if (!oom_kill_task(c))
>                        return 0;
>        }
>
> --

I am worried about latency of OOM at worst case.
I mean that task_in_mem_cgroup calls task_lock of child.
We have used task_lock in many place.
Some place task_lock hold and then other locks.
For example, exit_fs held task_lock and try to hold write_lock of fs->lock.
If child already hold task_lock and wait to write_lock of fs->lock, OOM latency
is dependent of fs->lock.

I am not sure how many usecase is also dependent of other locks.
If it is not as is, we can't make sure in future.

So How about try_task_in_mem_cgroup?
If we can't hold task_lock, let's continue next child.


-- 
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-02-05 16:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-02-05  0:39 [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg: fix oom killer kills a task in other cgroup KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-05  0:57 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-05 16:30 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2010-02-09  0:32   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-09  0:56     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-09  1:24     ` Minchan Kim
2010-02-09  1:34       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-09  6:49       ` David Rientjes
2010-02-09  7:08         ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-09  9:40         ` Minchan Kim
2010-02-09  9:55           ` David Rientjes
2010-02-09 10:18             ` Minchan Kim
2010-02-09  3:02   ` [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg: fix oom killer kills a task in other cgroup v2 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-09  7:50     ` David Rientjes
2010-02-09  8:02       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-09  8:21         ` David Rientjes
2010-02-09  9:22           ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-09  9:35             ` David Rientjes
2010-02-09  9:27     ` Balbir Singh

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=28c262361002050830m7519f1c3y8860540708527fc0@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp \
    --cc=rientjes@google.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).