On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> It's pointless to kill a task if another thread sharing its mm cannot be
> killed to allow future memory freeing. A subsequent patch will prevent
> kills in such cases, but first it's necessary to have a way to flag a
> task that shares memory with an OOM_DISABLE task that doesn't incur an
> additional tasklist scan, which would make select_bad_process() an O(n^2)
> function.
>
> This patch adds an atomic counter to struct mm_struct that follows how
> many threads attached to it have an oom_score_adj of OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN.
> They cannot be killed by the kernel, so their memory cannot be freed in
> oom conditions.
>
> This only requires task_lock() on the task that we're operating on, it
> does not require mm->mmap_sem since task_lock() pins the mm and the
> operation is atomic.
>
>
> ...
>
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -1047,6 +1047,21 @@ static ssize_t oom_adjust_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> return -EACCES;
> }
>
> + task_lock(task);
> + if (!task->mm) {
> + task_unlock(task);
> + unlock_task_sighand(task, &flags);
> + put_task_struct(task);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (oom_adjust != task->signal->oom_adj) {
> + if (oom_adjust == OOM_DISABLE)
> + atomic_inc(&task->mm->oom_disable_count);
> + if (task->signal->oom_adj == OOM_DISABLE)
> + atomic_dec(&task->mm->oom_disable_count);
> + }
scary function. Wanna try converting oom_adjust_write() to the
single-exit-with-goto model sometime, see if the result looks more
maintainable?
>
> ...
>
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@
> #include <linux/perf_event.h>
> #include <linux/posix-timers.h>
> #include <linux/user-return-notifier.h>
> +#include <linux/oom.h>
>
> #include <asm/pgtable.h>
> #include <asm/pgalloc.h>
> @@ -485,6 +486,7 @@ static struct mm_struct * mm_init(struct mm_struct * mm, struct task_struct *p)
> mm->cached_hole_size = ~0UL;
> mm_init_aio(mm);
> mm_init_owner(mm, p);
> + atomic_set(&mm->oom_disable_count, 0);
So in fork() we zap this if !CLONE_VM? Was the CLONE_VM case tested
nicely?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>