lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH memcg] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the limit of dying tasks
From
Date
On 9/10/21 5:55 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 10-09-21 16:20:58, Vasily Averin wrote:
>> On 9/10/21 4:04 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> Can't we add fatal_signal_pending(current) test to vmalloc() loop?
>
> We can and we should.
>
>> 1) this has been done in the past but has been reverted later.
>
> The reason for that should be addressed IIRC.

I don't know the details of this, and I need some time to investigate it.

>> 2) any vmalloc changes will affect non-memcg allocations too.
>> If we're doing memcg-related checks it's better to do it in one place.
>
> I think those two things are just orthogonal. Bailing out from vmalloc
> early sounds reasonable to me on its own. Allocating a large thing that
> is likely to go away with the allocating context is just a waste of
> resources and potential reason to disruptions to others.

I doubt that fatal signal should block any vmalloc allocations.
I assume there are situations where rollback of some cancelled operation uses vmalloc.
Or coredump saving on some remote storage can uses vmalloc.

However for me it's abnormal that even OOM-killer cannot cancel huge vmalloc allocation.
So I think tsk_is_oom_victim(current) check should be added to vm_area_alloc_pages()
to break vmalloc cycle.

Thank you,
Vasily Averin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-13 10:31    [W:1.128 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site