lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] OOM, PM: OOM killed task shouldn't escape PM suspend
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:02:23PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Why would PM freezing make OOM killing fail? That doesn't make much
> > sense. Sure, it can block it for a finite duration for sync purposes
> > but making OOM killing fail seems the wrong way around.
>
> We cannot block in the allocation path because the request might come
> from the freezer path itself (e.g. when suspending devices etc.).
> At least this is my understanding why the original oom disable approach
> was implemented.

I was saying that it could temporarily block either direction to
implement proper synchronization while guaranteeing forward progress.

> > We're doing one thing for non-PM freezing and the other way around for
> > PM freezing, which indicates one of the two directions is wrong.
>
> Because those two paths are quite different in their requirements. The
> cgroup freezer only cares about freezing tasks and it doesn't have to
> care about tasks accessing a possibly half suspended device on their way
> out.

I don't think the fundamental relationship between freezing and oom
killing are different between the two and the failure to recognize
that is what's leading to these weird issues.

> > Shouldn't it be that OOM killing happening while PM freezing is in
> > progress cancels PM freezing rather than the other way around? Find a
> > point in PM suspend/hibernation operation where everything must be
> > stable, disable OOM killing there and check whether OOM killing
> > happened inbetween and if so back out.
>
> This is freeze_processes AFAIU. I might be wrong of course but this is
> the time since when nobody should be waking processes up because they
> could access half suspended devices.

No, you're doing it before freezing starts. The system is in no way
in a quiescent state at that point.

> > It seems rather obvious to me that OOM killing has to have precedence
> > over PM freezing.
> >
> > Sure, once the system reaches a point where the whole system must be
> > in a stable state for snapshotting or whatever, disabling OOM killing
> > is fine but at that point the system is in a very limited execution
> > mode and sure won't be processing page faults from userland for
> > example and we can actually disable OOM killing knowing that anything
> > afterwards is ready to handle memory allocation failures.
>
> I am really confused now. This is basically what the final patch does
> actually. Here is the what I have currently just to make the further
> discussion easier.

Please see above.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-06 17:41    [W:0.135 / U:2.992 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site