lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: avoid unnecessary OOM kills
Dave Peterson <dsp@llnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Below is a 2.6.17-rc4-mm1 patch that fixes a problem where the OOM killer was
> unnecessarily killing system daemons in addition to memory-hogging user
> processes. The patch fixes things so that the following assertion is
> satisfied:
>
> If a failed attempt to allocate memory triggers the OOM killer, then the
> failed attempt must have occurred _after_ any process previously shot by
> the OOM killer has cleaned out its mm_struct.
>
> Thus we avoid situations where concurrent invocations of the OOM killer cause
> more processes to be shot than necessary to resolve the OOM condition.
>
> ...
>
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc4-mm1.orig/include/linux/swap.h 2006-05-17 22:31:38.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc4-mm1/include/linux/swap.h 2006-05-17 22:33:54.000000000 -0700
> @@ -155,6 +156,29 @@
> #define vm_swap_full() (nr_swap_pages*2 < total_swap_pages)
>
> /* linux/mm/oom_kill.c */
> +extern volatile unsigned long oom_kill_in_progress;

This shouldn't be volatile.

> +/*
> + * Attempt to start an OOM kill operation. Return 0 on success, or 1 if an
> + * OOM kill is already in progress.
> + */
> +static inline int oom_kill_start(void)
> +{
> + return test_and_set_bit(0, &oom_kill_in_progress);
> +}

Suggest this be called oom_kill_trystart().

> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc4-mm1.orig/mm/oom_kill.c 2006-05-17 22:31:38.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc4-mm1/mm/oom_kill.c 2006-05-17 22:33:54.000000000 -0700
> @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@
> int sysctl_panic_on_oom;
> /* #define DEBUG */
>
> +volatile unsigned long oom_kill_in_progress = 0;

This shouldn't be initialised to zero. The kernel zeroes bss at startup.

> /**
> * badness - calculate a numeric value for how bad this task has been
> * @p: task struct of which task we should calculate
> @@ -260,27 +262,31 @@
> struct mm_struct *mm;
> task_t * g, * q;
>
> + task_lock(p);
> mm = p->mm;
>
> - /* WARNING: mm may not be dereferenced since we did not obtain its
> - * value from get_task_mm(p). This is OK since all we need to do is
> - * compare mm to q->mm below.
> + if (mm == NULL || mm == &init_mm) {
> + task_unlock(p);
> + return 1;
> + }
> +
> + set_bit(MM_FLAG_OOM_NOTIFY, &mm->flags);
> + task_unlock(p);

Putting task_lock() in here would be a fairly obvious way to address the
fragility which that comment describes. But I have a feeling that we
discussed that a couple of weeks ago and found a problem with it, didn't we?

> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc4-mm1.orig/mm/page_alloc.c 2006-05-17 22:31:38.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc4-mm1/mm/page_alloc.c 2006-05-17 22:33:54.000000000 -0700
> @@ -910,6 +910,36 @@
> return 1;
> }
>
> +/* Try to allocate one more time before invoking the OOM killer. */
> +static struct page * oom_alloc(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> + struct zonelist *zonelist)
> +{
> + struct page *page;
> +
> + /* The use of oom_kill_start() below prevents parallel OOM kill
> + * operations. This fixes a problem where the OOM killer was observed
> + * shooting system daemons in addition to memory-hogging user
> + * processes.
> + */
> + if (oom_kill_start())
> + return NULL; /* previous OOM kill still in progress */
> +
> + /* If we get this far, we _know_ that any previous OOM killer victim
> + * has cleaned out its mm_struct. Therefore we should pick a victim
> + * to shoot if the allocation below fails.
> + */
> + page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask | __GFP_HARDWALL, order,
> + zonelist, ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH | ALLOC_CPUSET);
> +
> + if (page) {
> + oom_kill_finish(); /* cancel OOM kill operation */
> + return page;
> + }
> +
> + out_of_memory(zonelist, gfp_mask, order);
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * get_page_from_freeliest goes through the zonelist trying to allocate
> * a page.
> @@ -1116,18 +1146,8 @@
> if (page)
> goto got_pg;
> } else if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)) {
> - /*
> - * Go through the zonelist yet one more time, keep
> - * very high watermark here, this is only to catch
> - * a parallel oom killing, we must fail if we're still
> - * under heavy pressure.
> - */
> - page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask|__GFP_HARDWALL, order,
> - zonelist, ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH|ALLOC_CPUSET);
> - if (page)
> + if ((page = oom_alloc(gfp_mask, order, zonelist)) != NULL)
> goto got_pg;
> -
> - out_of_memory(zonelist, gfp_mask, order);
> goto restart;
> }

So if process A did a successful oom_kill_start(), and processes B, C, D
and E all get into difficulty as well, they'll go into busywait loops. The
cond_resched() will eventually save us from locking up, but it's a bit
unpleasant.

And I'm trying to work out where process A will run oom_kill_finish() if
`cancel' ends up being 0 in out_of_memory(). afaict, it doesn't, and the
oom-killer will be accidentally disabled?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-05-18 22:07    [W:0.031 / U:15.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site