Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/oom_kill: show oom eligibility when displaying the current memory state of all tasks

From: Waiman Long
Date: Fri Jun 11 2021 - 13:42:57 EST


On 6/11/21 1:19 PM, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
At the present time, when showing potential OOM victims, we do not
exclude tasks which already have MMF_OOM_SKIP set; it is possible that
the last OOM killable victim was already OOM killed, yet the OOM
reaper failed to reclaim memory and set MMF_OOM_SKIP.
This can be confusing/or perhaps even misleading, to the reader of the
OOM report. Now, we already unconditionally display a task's
oom_score_adj_min value that can be set to OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN which is
indicative of an "unkillable" task i.e. is not eligible.

This patch provides a clear indication with regard to the OOM
eligibility of each displayed task.

Signed-off-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/oom_kill.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index eefd3f5fde46..70781d681a6e 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -160,6 +160,27 @@ static inline bool is_sysrq_oom(struct oom_control *oc)
return oc->order == -1;
}
+/**
+ * is_task_eligible_oom - determine if and why a task cannot be OOM killed
+ * @tsk: task to check
+ *
+ * Needs to be called with task_lock().
+ */
+static const char * is_task_oom_eligible(struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ long adj;
+
+ adj = (long)p->signal->oom_score_adj;
+ if (adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN)
+ return "no: oom score";
+ else if (test_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &p->mm->flags)
+ return "no: oom reaped";
+ else if (in_vfork(p))
+ return "no: in vfork";
+ else
+ return "yes";
+}
+
/* return true if the task is not adequate as candidate victim task. */
static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p)
{
@@ -401,12 +422,13 @@ static int dump_task(struct task_struct *p, void *arg)
return 0;
}
- pr_info("[%7d] %5d %5d %8lu %8lu %8ld %8lu %5hd %s\n",
+ pr_info("[%7d] %5d %5d %8lu %8lu %8ld %8lu %5hd %-15s %s\n",
task->pid, from_kuid(&init_user_ns, task_uid(task)),
task->tgid, task->mm->total_vm, get_mm_rss(task->mm),
mm_pgtables_bytes(task->mm),
get_mm_counter(task->mm, MM_SWAPENTS),
- task->signal->oom_score_adj, task->comm);
+ task->signal->oom_score_adj, is_task_oom_eligible(task),
+ task->comm);
task_unlock(task);
return 0;
@@ -420,12 +442,13 @@ static int dump_task(struct task_struct *p, void *arg)
* memcg, not in the same cpuset, or bound to a disjoint set of mempolicy nodes
* are not shown.
* State information includes task's pid, uid, tgid, vm size, rss,
- * pgtables_bytes, swapents, oom_score_adj value, and name.
+ * pgtables_bytes, swapents, oom_score_adj value, oom eligible status
+ * and name.
*/
static void dump_tasks(struct oom_control *oc)
{
pr_info("Tasks state (memory values in pages):\n");
- pr_info("[ pid ] uid tgid total_vm rss pgtables_bytes swapents oom_score_adj name\n");
+ pr_info("[ pid ] uid tgid total_vm rss pgtables_bytes swapents oom_score_adj oom eligible? name\n");

A minor nit:

"oom eligible?" has 13 characters. The field width is 15. Maybe you should pad 2 more spaces to make the proper alignment.

Cheers,
Longman