lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] OOM killer: wait for tasks with pending SIGKILL to exit
Ping :)

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:06:05 +0400
Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
> David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
>
> > > /*
> > > * If this task is not being ptraced on exit, then wait for it
> > > * to finish before killing some other task unnecessarily.
> > > */
> > > - if (!(task->group_leader->ptrace & PT_TRACE_EXIT))
> > > + if (!(task->group_leader->ptrace & PT_TRACE_EXIT)) {
> > > + set_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_MEMDIE);
> >
> > This does not, we do not give access to memory reserves unless the process
> > needs it to allocate memory. The task here, which is not current, can
> > call into the oom killer and be granted memory reserves if necessary.
>
> True. However, why TIF_MEMDIE is set for PF_EXITING task in oom_kill_process()
> then?
> Also, setting TIF_MEMDIE will avoid direct reclaim and memory allocation should
> be fast if exiting task needs it.
>
> > > @@ -412,16 +415,6 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> > > static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(oom_rs, DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL,
> > > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST);
> > >
> > > - /*
> > > - * If the task is already exiting, don't alarm the sysadmin or kill
> > > - * its children or threads, just set TIF_MEMDIE so it can die quickly
> > > - */
> > > - if (p->flags & PF_EXITING) {
> > > - set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
> > > - put_task_struct(p);
> > > - return;
> > > - }
> >
> > I think you misunderstood the point of this; if a selected process is
> > already in the exit path then this is simply avoiding dumping oom kill
> > lines to the kernel log. We want to keep doing that.
>
> This happens in oom_kill_process() after victim has been selected by
> select_bad_process(). But there is already PF_EXITING check in
> oom_scan_process_thread() and in this case OOM code won't call oom_kill_process.
> There is only a slight chance that victim will become PF_EXITING between
> scan and kill.
>
> The only difference is in force_kill flag, and the only case where it's set
> is SysRq. And I think in this case OOM killer messages are a good thing to have
> even when victim is already exiting, instead of just silence.
>
> --
> Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@gmail.com>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-19 18:21    [W:0.068 / U:20.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site