On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 9:45 AM Waiman Long <llong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 6/7/21 12:31 PM, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> > At the present time, in the context of memcg OOM, even when
> > sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task is enabled/or set, the "allocating"
> > task cannot be selected, as a target for the OOM killer.
> >
> > This patch removes the restriction entirely.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/oom_kill.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > index eefd3f5fde46..3bae33e2d9c2 100644
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -1089,9 +1089,9 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> > oc->nodemask = NULL;
> > check_panic_on_oom(oc);
> >
> > - if (!is_memcg_oom(oc) && sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task &&
> > - current->mm && !oom_unkillable_task(current) &&
> > - oom_cpuset_eligible(current, oc) &&
> > + if (sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task && current->mm &&
> > + !oom_unkillable_task(current) &&
> > + oom_cpuset_eligible(current, oc) &&
> > current->signal->oom_score_adj != OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN) {
> > get_task_struct(current);
> > oc->chosen = current;
>
> To provide more context for this patch, we are actually seeing that in a
> customer report about OOM happened in a container where the dominating
> task used up most of the memory and it happened to be the task that
> triggered the OOM with the result that no killable process could be
> found.
Why was there no killable process? What about the process allocating
the memory or is this remote memcg charging?
> I don't see a reason why this should be limited to a global OOM only.
>
> Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Cheers,
> Longman
>
