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

[David Rientjes]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> Yes we should try to do this in the OOM killer context, and in this case
> (of course) we need trylock. Let me quote my previous email:
> 
> 	And we want to avoid using workqueues when the caller can do this
> 	directly. And in this case we certainly need trylock. But this needs
> 	some refactoring: we do not want to do this under oom_lock, otoh it
> 	makes sense to do this from mark_oom_victim() if current && killed,
> 	and a lot more details.
> 
> and probably this is another reason why do we need MMF_MEMDIE. But again,
> I think the initial change should be simple.
> 

I agree with the direction and I don't think it would be too complex to 
have a dedicated kthread that is kicked when we queue an mm to do 
MADV_DONTNEED behavior, and have that happen only if a trylock in 
oom_kill_process() fails to do it itself for anonymous mappings.  We may 
have different opinions of simplicity.
--
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/