lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] oom: skip frozen tasks
On Fri 26-08-11 02:21:42, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > Let's give all frozen tasks a bonus (OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX/2) so that we do
> > not consider them unless really necessary and if we really pick up one
> > then thaw its threads before we try to kill it.
> >
>
> I don't like arbitrary heuristics like this because they polluted the old
> oom killer before it was rewritten and made it much more unpredictable.
> The only heuristic it includes right now is a bonus for root tasks so that
> when two processes have nearly the same amount of memory usage (within 3%
> of available memory), the non-root task is chosen instead.
>
> This bonus is actually saying that a single frozen task can use up to 50%
> more of the machine's capacity in a system-wide oom condition than the
> task that will now be killed instead. That seems excessive.

Yes, the number is probably too high. I just wanted to start up with
something. Maybe we can give it another root bonus. But I agree whatever
we use it will be just a random value...

>
> I do like the idea of automatically thawing the task though and if that's
> possible then I don't think we need to manipulate the badness heuristic at
> all. I know that wouldn't be feasible when we've frozen _all_ threads and

Why it wouldn't be feasible for all threads? If you have all tasks
frozen (suspend going on, whole cgroup or all tasks in a cpuset/nodemask
are frozen) then the selection is more natural because all of them are
equal (with or without a bonus). The bonus tries to reduce thawing if
not all of them are frozen.
I am not saying the bonus is necessary, though. It depends on what
the freezer is used for (e.g. freeze a process which went wild and
debug what went wrong wouldn't welcome that somebody killed it or other
(mis)use which relies on D state).

> that's why we have oom_killer_disable(), but we'll have to check with
> Rafael to see if something like this could work. Rafael?
>
> > TODO
> > - given bonus might be too big?
> > - aren't we racing with try_to_freeze_tasks?
> > ---
> > mm/oom_kill.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > index 626303b..fd194bc 100644
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
> > #include <linux/mempolicy.h>
> > #include <linux/security.h>
> > #include <linux/ptrace.h>
> > +#include <linux/freezer.h>
> >
> > int sysctl_panic_on_oom;
> > int sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task;
> > @@ -214,6 +215,14 @@ unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> > points += p->signal->oom_score_adj;
> >
> > /*
> > + * Do not try to kill frozen tasks unless there is nothing else to kill.
> > + * We do not want to give it 1 point because we still want to select a good
> > + * candidate among all frozen tasks. Let's give it a reasonable bonus.
> > + */
> > + if (frozen(p))
> > + points -= OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX/2;
> > +
> > + /*
> > * Never return 0 for an eligible task that may be killed since it's
> > * possible that no single user task uses more than 0.1% of memory and
> > * no single admin tasks uses more than 3.0%.
> > @@ -450,6 +459,10 @@ static int oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > pr_err("Kill process %d (%s) sharing same memory\n",
> > task_pid_nr(q), q->comm);
> > task_unlock(q);
> > +
> > + if (frozen(q))
> > + thaw_process(q);
> > +
> > force_sig(SIGKILL, q);
> > }
> >

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-08-26 11:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans