Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] trace: Set oom_score_adj to maximum for ring buffer allocating process | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Thu, 26 May 2011 19:38:38 -0400 |
| |
[ I added to the Cc people that understand MM more than I do ]
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 15:28 -0700, Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > But the issue is, if the process increasing the size of the ring buffer > > causes the oom, it will not handle the SIGKILL until after the ring > > buffer has finished allocating. Now, if it failed to allocate, then we > > are fine, but if it does not fail, but now we start killing processes, > > then we may be in trouble. > > > > If I understand correctly, if a fatal signal is pending on a process > while allocation is called, the allocation fails. Then we handle the > freeing up memory correctly, though the echo gets killed once we return > from the allocation process. > > > I like the NORETRY better. But then, would this mean that if we have a > > lot of cached filesystems, we wont be able to extend the ring buffer? > > It doesn't seem so. I talked with the mm- team and I understand that > even if NORETRY is set, cached pages will be flushed out and allocation > will succeed. But it still does not address the situation when the ring > buffer allocation is going on and another process invokes OOM. If the > oom_score_adj is not set to maximum, then random processes will still be > killed before ring buffer allocation fails. > > > > > I'm thinking the oom killer used here got lucky. As it killed this task, > > we were still out of memory, and the ring buffer failed to get the > > memory it needed and freed up everything that it previously allocated, > > and returned. Then the process calling this function would be killed by > > the OOM. Ideally, the process shouldn't be killed and the ring buffer > > just returned -ENOMEM to the user. > > What do you think of this? > > test_set_oom_score_adj(MAXIMUM); > allocate_ring_buffer(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NORETRY); > test_set_oom_score_adj(original); > > This makes sure that the allocation fails much sooner and more > gracefully. If oom-killer is invoked in any circumstance, then the ring > buffer allocation process gives up memory and is killed.
I don't know. But as I never seen this function before, I went and took a look. This test_set_oom_score_adj() is new, and coincidentally written by another google developer ;)
As there's not really a precedence to this, if those that I added to the Cc, give their acks, I'm happy to apply this for the next merge window.
-- Steve
| |