lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch -mm] mm, oom: add global access to memory reserves on livelock
On Mon 24-08-15 14:10:10, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> > Why can't we think about choosing more OOM victims instead of granting access
> > to memory reserves?
> >
>
> We have no indication of which thread is holding a mutex that would need
> to be killed, so we'd be randomly killing processes waiting for forward
> progress. A worst-case scenario would be the thread is OOM_DISABLE and we
> kill every process on the system needlessly. This problem obviously
> occurs often enough that killing all userspace isnt going to be a viable
> solution.
>
> > Also, SysRq might not be usable under OOM because workqueues can get stuck.
> > The panic_on_oom_timeout was first proposed using a workqueue but was
> > updated to use a timer because there is no guarantee that workqueues work
> > as expected under OOM.
> >
>
> I don't know anything about a panic_on_oom_timeout,

You were CCed on the discussion
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150609170310.GA8990%40dhcp22.suse.cz

> but panicking would
> only be a reasonable action if memory reserves were fully depleted. That
> could easily be dealt with in the page allocator so there's no timeout
> involved.

As noted in other email. Just depletion is not a good indicator. The
system can still make a forward progress even when reserves are
depleted.

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-08-25 17:41    [W:0.549 / U:0.764 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site