[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectA true story of a crash.
A true story:

The time is 12:05 pm CST. The date is now. You are merrily using your personal
Linux 2.1.115 system, testing Communicator 4.5 PR1, when all of the sudden and
out of the blue, the hard drive starts cranking ever harder. Xload scales down a
few times as the load average goes balistic. Quickly the machine grinds to a
halt. The mouse won't move - you can't even change virtual consoles. Still the
hard drive thrashes. You remember that you compiled the Magic SysRq key in, so
in desperation, you try it. Alt-SysRq-K. There. You won't be able to use the
console until you reboot (notwithstanding various uncouth dosemu tricks) but at
least the system has stopped thrashing.

It's happened before, and every time, you became angry, but at the time, had no
proof of what the problem was. Linux, you figured, had about as much chance of
crashing as, say, a mountain. You were wrong. Dead wrong.

Fortunately, you had a window of "top" running. Curiously, you notice that
kswapd was on top, with 100 cpu. Then it hits you. A great big ZERO under the
"free" column for your swap space. You were out of swap.

Alt-SysRq-s-s-s-u-u-b. The machine reboots.

A though strikes you. You strike back. Then you realize what it was. The machine
Capital *MUST* have a way of coping when it runs out of memory. The machine did
NOT cope.

You run rampantly through the Kernel Source, looking for the pointers to the
maintainers. Searching on "mem" and "mm" you find nothing - a few e-mail
addresses match "mm" but that's all. You try "swap" but no luck there either.
Perhaps there is no support for the memory management subsystem? But it keeps
getting updates and patches. There must be SOMEONE working on this. To no avail
you search and search.

Exhausted, you decide to post your story to a few places. Cautiously you begin
to consider the implications of kernel-hacking. Many times have you looked in
awe and wonder at the depth of the source, but never has your hacking hand
strayed from the safe world of userland applications. Daunted, you begin to
consider the alternatives. Would it be better to try to monitor the free space,
and compensate? How to compensate? Should one add more swap buffers on demand?
This would be tricky - and what if the program got swapped out? Should you look
for big processes and kill them? What if the problem was many small processes?
Perhaps the most hungry user gets a SIGTERM, then later on a SIGKILL? You
quickly decide that root should be exempted. You remember mlock(), and then you
remember that you've never even tried it. To hang such an important decision on
a program which may not even ever get to run seems precarious, at best.

You decide that the WAY must be to patch kswapd, so it knows when its mission is
futile, and invoke a more aggressive procedure.

The machine must stay up!

After some thought, you consider that fork-bombs are nowhere near as common on a
relatively well-behaived "Personal" system as is running out of memory. Thus, it
makes sense to kill the largest process not owned by root unless there are no
more, then the largest process owned by root as long as it's not init, then just
give up on the theory that if init wants to take down the system there are
other, larger problems.

Why largest? It's probably the out-of-control one.

What would users think if their process suddenly disapeared? They should be
given a warning on the associated TTY that the process was killed due to lack of
memory, along with a brief summary of what the process was. If there is no
associated TTY, then any tty owned by that user would do. If that fails, eg if
the user is not logged in, then oh well. Also, any time this happens, it would
be wise to note the occurance in the syslog, along with some details such as who
owned the process, how big it was, and what the command line was. This would
enable log file analysys to discover frequent offenders.

For politeness, it's probably wise to send a SIGTERM, wait one second, and then
send a SIGKILL if necessary. During the second, new processes and memory
allocations would fail because memory is full, but this already has an
error-handling infrastructure behind it.

Now to find some way of getting this done.

Suggestions are welcome.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.095 / U:2.972 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site