Re: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates.
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Date: 2016-01-14 00:57:13
Also in:
lkml
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
David Rientjes wrote:quoted
quoted
@@ -171,7 +195,7 @@ unsigned long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, if (oom_unkillable_task(p, memcg, nodemask)) return 0; - p = find_lock_task_mm(p); + p = find_lock_non_victim_task_mm(p); if (!p) return 0;I understand how this may make your test case pass, but I simply don't understand how this could possibly be the correct thing to do. This would cause oom_badness() to return 0 for any process where a thread has TIF_MEMDIE set. If the oom killer is called from the page allocator, kills a thread, and it is recalled before that thread may exit, then this will panic the system if there are no other eligible processes to kill.Why? oom_badness() is called after oom_scan_process_thread() returned OOM_SCAN_OK. oom_scan_process_thread() returns OOM_SCAN_ABORT if a thread has TIF_MEMDIE set.
oom_scan_process_thread() checks for TIF_MEMDIE on p, not on p's threads. If one of p's threads has TIF_MEMDIE set and p does not, we actually want to set TIF_MEMDIE for p. That's the current behavior since it will lead to p->mm memory freeing. Your patch is excluding such processes entirely and selecting another process to kill unnecessarily. -- 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>