Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:20:33 +0900 | From | Minchan Kim <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] oom: move oom_adj to signal_struct |
| |
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:53:31 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:03:23 +0900 > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:55:16 +0900 > > > Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:51:31 +0900 (JST) > > > > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:29:34 +0900 (JST) > > > > > > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Kosaki. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am so late to invole this thread. > > > > > > > > But let me have a question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's advantage of placing oom_adj in singal rather than task ? > > > > > > > > I mean task->oom_adj and task->signal->oom_adj ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry if you already discussed it at last threads. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sorry. that's very good question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm trying to explain the detailed intention of commit 2ff05b2b4eac > > > > > > > (move oom_adj to mm_struct). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In 2.6.30, OOM logic callflow is here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __out_of_memory > > > > > > > select_bad_process for each task > > > > > > > badness calculate badness of one task > > > > > > > oom_kill_process search child > > > > > > > oom_kill_task kill target task and mm shared tasks with it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example, process-A have two thread, thread-A and thread-B and it > > > > > > > have very fat memory. > > > > > > > And, each thread have following likes oom property. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread-A: oom_adj = OOM_DISABLE, oom_score = 0 > > > > > > > thread-B: oom_adj = 0, oom_score = very-high > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, select_bad_process() select thread-B, but oom_kill_task refuse > > > > > > > kill the task because thread-A have OOM_DISABLE. > > > > > > > __out_of_memory() call select_bad_process() again. but select_bad_process() > > > > > > > select the same task. It mean kernel fall in the livelock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact is, select_bad_process() must select killable task. otherwise > > > > > > > OOM logic go into livelock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this enough explanation? thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem resulted from David patch. > > > > It can solve live lock problem but make a new problem like vfork problem. > > > > I think both can be solved by different approach. > > > > > > > > It's just RFC. > > > > > > > > If some process is selected by OOM killer but it have a child of OOM immune, > > > > We just decrease point of process. It can affect selection of bad process. > > > > After some trial, at last bad score is drastically low and another process is > > > > selected by OOM killer. So I think Live lock don't happen. > > > > > > > > New variable adding in task struct is rather high cost. > > > > But i think we can union it with oomkilladj > > > > since oomkilladj is used to present just -17 ~ 15. > > > > > > > > What do you think about this approach ? > > > > > > > keeping this in "task" struct is troublesome. > > > It may not livelock but near-to-livelock state, in bad case. > > > > Hmm. I can't understand why it is troublesome. > > I think it's related to moving oom_adj to singal_struct. > > Unfortunately, I can't understand why we have to put oom_adj > > in singal_struct? > > > > That's why I have a question to Kosaki a while ago. > > I can't understand it still. :-( > > > > Could you elaborate it ? > > Maybe, It's because my explanation is still poor. sorry. > Please give me one more chance. > > In my previous mail, I explained select_bad_process() must not > unkillable task, is this ok? > IOW, if all thread have the same oom_adj, the issue gone. > > signal_struct is shared all thread in the process. then, the issue gone. >
Your and Kame's good explanation opens my eyes. :) I realized your approach's benefit.
Yes. Let's wait to listen others's opinios.
-- Kind regards, Minchan Kim
| |