Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 06:52:20AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Oops, I misinterpreted. This is where a multithreaded OOM victim with or
> > without
> > the OOM reaper can get stuck forever. Think about a process with two
> > threads is
> >
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 06:52:20AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:40:28AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > > @@ -992,6 +992,13 @@
On Wed 21-06-17 22:19:11, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Oom killer should avoid unnecessary kills. To prevent them, during
> the tasks list traverse we check for task which was previously
> selected as oom victims. If there is such a task, new victim
> is not selected.
>
> This approach is sub-optimal
Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:40:28AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > @@ -992,6 +992,13 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> > > > if
Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:40:28AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > @@ -992,6 +992,13 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> > > if (oom_killer_disabled)
> > > return false;
>
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:40:28AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -992,6 +992,13 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> > if (oom_killer_disabled)
> > return false;
> >
> > + /*
> > +* If
Oom killer should avoid unnecessary kills. To prevent them, during
the tasks list traverse we check for task which was previously
selected as oom victims. If there is such a task, new victim
is not selected.
This approach is sub-optimal (we're doing costly iteration over the task
list every time)
