Thread (105 messages) 105 messages, 9 authors, 2015-11-05

Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: 2015-09-20 14:50:45
Also in: lkml

Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 09/17, Kyle Walker wrote:
quoted
Currently, the oom killer will attempt to kill a process that is in
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state. For tasks in this state for an exceptional
period of time, such as processes writing to a frozen filesystem during
a lengthy backup operation, this can result in a deadlock condition as
related processes memory access will stall within the page fault
handler.
And there are other potential reasons for deadlock.

Stupid idea. Can't we help the memory hog to free its memory? This is
orthogonal to other improvements we can do.
So, we are trying to release memory without waiting for arriving at
exit_mm() from do_exit(), right? If it works, it will be a simple and
small change that will be easy to backport.

The idea is that since fatal_signal_pending() tasks no longer return to
user space, we can release memory allocated for use by user space, right?

Then, I think that this approach can be applied to not only OOM-kill case
but also regular kill(pid, SIGKILL) case (i.e. kick from signal_wake_up(1)
or somewhere?). A dedicated kernel thread (not limited to OOM-kill purpose)
scans for fatal_signal_pending() tasks and release that task's memory.

--
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>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help