Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 17-06-15 15:24:27, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 17-06-15 14:51:27, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The important thing is to decide what is the reasonable way forward. We
> > > have two two implementations of panic based timeout. So we should decide
> >
> > And the most obvious question, of course.
> > - Should we add a panic timeout at all?
> >
> > > - Should be the timeout bound to panic_on_oom?
> > > - Should we care about constrained OOM contexts?
> > > - If yes should they use the same timeout?
> > > - If yes should each memcg be able to define its own timeout?
> > ^ no
> >
> > > My thinking is that it should be bound to panic_on_oom=1 only until we
> > > hear from somebody actually asking for a constrained oom and even then
> > > do not allow for too large configuration space (e.g. no per-memcg
> > > timeout) or have separate mempolicy vs. memcg timeouts.
> > >
> > > Let's start simple and make things more complicated later!
>
> Any more ideas/thoughts on this?
No ideas/thoughts from my side.
By the way, the "set TIF_MEMDIE upon calling out_of_memory() when TIF_MEMDIE
was not set by previous out_of_memory() because oom_kill_process() chose a
different thread" logic
if (current->mm &&
(fatal_signal_pending(current) || task_will_free_mem(current))) {
mark_oom_victim(current);
goto out;
}
sounds broken for me, for GFP_NOFS allocations do not call
out_of_memory() from the beginning.
Say, Process1 has two threads called Thread1 and Thread2. Thread1 was blocked
at unkillable lock and Thread2 was doing GFP_NOFS allocation from syscall
context (e.g. codes under security/ directory) when TIF_MEMDIE was set on
Thread1.
While failing GFP_NOFS allocation for ext4 filesystem's operations damages
the filesystem, failing GFP_NOFS allocation from syscall context will not
damage the filesystem. Therefore, Thread2 should be able to fail GFP_NOFS
allocations than wait for TIF_MEMDIE forever (which will never be set
because the logic above does not apply to GFP_NOFS allocation).
I didn't imagine kmalloc_killable() when I wrote "(3) Replace kmalloc()
with kmalloc_nofail() and kmalloc_noretry()." at
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=142408937117294 . But I came to feel that
introducing GFP_KILLABLE (retry unless fatal_signal_pending()) which is
between GFP_NORETRY (don't retry) and GFP_NOFAIL (retry forever) might help
reducing the possibility of stalling multi-threaded OOM victim process.
Other than that, my ideas/thoughts are staying at
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143239200805478 .
Please continue CC'ing me because I'm not subscribed to linux-mm ML.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>