Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: introduce oom reaper

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:36:15 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> This is based on the idea from Mel Gorman discussed during LSFMM 2015 and
> independently brought up by Oleg Nesterov.
> 
> The OOM killer currently allows to kill only a single task in a good
> hope that the task will terminate in a reasonable time and frees up its
> memory.  Such a task (oom victim) will get an access to memory reserves
> via mark_oom_victim to allow a forward progress should there be a need
> for additional memory during exit path.
>
> ...
>
> +static void oom_reap_vmas(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> +	int attempts = 0;
> +
> +	while (attempts++ < 10 && !__oom_reap_vmas(mm))
> +		schedule_timeout(HZ/10);

schedule_timeout() in state TASK_RUNNING doesn't do anything.  Use
msleep() or msleep_interruptible().  I can't decide which is more
appropriate - it only affects the load average display.

Which prompts the obvious question: as the no-operativeness of this
call wasn't noticed in testing, why do we have it there...

I guess it means that the __oom_reap_vmas() success rate is nice and
high ;)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/