Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?

[Tetsuo Handa]

Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/17, Kyle Walker wrote:
> >
> > Currently, the oom killer will attempt to kill a process that is in
> > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state. For tasks in this state for an exceptional
> > period of time, such as processes writing to a frozen filesystem during
> > a lengthy backup operation, this can result in a deadlock condition as
> > related processes memory access will stall within the page fault
> > handler.
> 
> And there are other potential reasons for deadlock.
> 
> Stupid idea. Can't we help the memory hog to free its memory? This is
> orthogonal to other improvements we can do.

So, we are trying to release memory without waiting for arriving at
exit_mm() from do_exit(), right? If it works, it will be a simple and
small change that will be easy to backport.

The idea is that since fatal_signal_pending() tasks no longer return to
user space, we can release memory allocated for use by user space, right?

Then, I think that this approach can be applied to not only OOM-kill case
but also regular kill(pid, SIGKILL) case (i.e. kick from signal_wake_up(1)
or somewhere?). A dedicated kernel thread (not limited to OOM-kill purpose)
scans for fatal_signal_pending() tasks and release that task's memory.
--
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/