lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/5] oom: don't kill random process
On Tue, 24 May 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> > > > This is unnecessary and just makes the oom killer egregiously long. We
> > > > are already diagnosing problems here at Google where the oom killer
> > > > holds
> > > > tasklist_lock on the readside for far too long, causing other cpus
> > > > waiting
> > > > for a write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) to encounter issues when irqs are
> > > > disabled and it is spinning. A second tasklist scan is simply a
> > > > non-starter.
> > > >
> > > > [ This is also one of the reasons why we needed to introduce
> > > > mm->oom_disable_count to prevent a second, expensive tasklist scan.
> > > > ]
> > >
> > > You misunderstand the code. Both select_bad_process() and
> > > oom_kill_process()
> > > are under tasklist_lock(). IOW, no change lock holding time.
> > >
> >
> > A second iteration through the tasklist in select_bad_process() will
> > extend the time that tasklist_lock is held, which is what your patch does.
>
> It never happen usual case. Plz think when happen all process score = 1.
>

I don't care if it happens in the usual case or extremely rare case. It
significantly increases the amount of time that tasklist_lock is held
which causes writelock starvation on other cpus and causes issues,
especially if the cpu being starved is updating the timer because it has
irqs disabled, i.e. write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) usually in the clone or
exit path. We can do better than that, and that's why I proposed my patch
to CAI that increases the resolution of the scoring and makes the root
process bonus proportional to the amount of used memory.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-24 04:01    [W:0.077 / U:1.316 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site