lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] memcg: page fault oom improvement
    On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:40:20 +0530
    Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

    > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-02-23 12:03:15]:
    >
    > > Nishimura-san, could you review and test your extreme test case with this ?
    > >
    > > ==
    > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
    > >
    > > Now, because of page_fault_oom_kill, returning VM_FAULT_OOM means
    > > random oom-killer should be called. Considering memcg, it handles
    > > OOM-kill in its own logic, there was a problem as "oom-killer called
    > > twice" problem.
    > >
    > > By commit a636b327f731143ccc544b966cfd8de6cb6d72c6, I added a check
    > > in pagefault_oom_killer shouldn't kill some (random) task if
    > > memcg's oom-killer already killed anyone.
    > > That was done by comapring current jiffies and last oom jiffies of memcg.
    > >
    > > I thought that easy fix was enough, but Nishimura could write a test case
    > > where checking jiffies is not enough. So, my fix was not enough.
    > > This is a fix of above commit.
    > >
    > > This new one does this.
    > > * memcg's try_charge() never returns -ENOMEM if oom-killer is allowed.
    > > * If someone is calling oom-killer, wait for it in try_charge().
    > > * If TIF_MEMDIE is set as a result of try_charge(), return 0 and
    > > allow process to make progress (and die.)
    > > * removed hook in pagefault_out_of_memory.
    > >
    > > By this, pagefult_out_of_memory will be never called if memcg's oom-killer
    > > is called and scattered codes are now in memcg's charge logic again.
    > >
    > > TODO:
    > > If __GFP_WAIT is not specified in gfp_mask flag, VM_FAULT_OOM will return
    > > anyway. We need to investigate it whether there is a case.
    > >
    > > Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
    > > Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>
    > > Cc: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
    > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
    >
    > I've not reviewed David's latest OOM killer changes. Are these changes based on top of
    > what is going to come in with David's proposal?

    About this change. no. This is an independent patch.
    But through these a few month work, I(we) noticed page_fault_out_of_memory() is
    dangerous and VM_FALUT_OOM should not be returned as much as possible.
    About memcg, it's not necessary to return VM_FAULT_OOM when we know oom-killer
    is called.

    This fix itself is straightforward. But difficult thing here is test case, I think.

    Thanks,
    -Kame




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-02-23 07:19    [W:2.508 / U:0.060 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site