Re: [RFC] simple_lmk: Introduce Simple Low Memory Killer for Android

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:46 PM Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:10:36PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > The idea seems interesting although I need to think about this a bit
> > more. Killing processes based on failed page allocation might backfire
> > during transient spikes in memory usage.
>
> This issue could be alleviated if tasks could be killed and have their pages
> reaped faster. Currently, Linux takes a _very_ long time to free a task's memory
> after an initial privileged SIGKILL is sent to a task, even with the task's
> priority being set to the highest possible (so unwanted scheduler preemption
> starving dying tasks of CPU time is not the issue at play here). I've
> frequently measured the difference in time between when a SIGKILL is sent for a
> task and when free_task() is called for that task to be hundreds of
> milliseconds, which is incredibly long. AFAIK, this is a problem that LMKD
> suffers from as well, and perhaps any OOM killer implementation in Linux, since
> you cannot evaluate effect you've had on memory pressure by killing a process
> for at least several tens of milliseconds.

Yeah, killing speed is a well-known problem which we are considering
in LMKD. For example the recent LMKD change to assign process being
killed to a cpuset cgroup containing big cores cuts the kill time
considerably. This is not ideal and we are thinking about better ways
to expedite the cleanup process.

> > AFAIKT the biggest issue with using this approach in userspace is that
> > it's not practically implementable without heavy in-kernel support.
> > How to implement such interaction between kernel and userspace would
> > be an interesting discussion which I would be happy to participate in.
>
> You could signal a lightweight userspace process that has maximum scheduler
> priority and have it kill the tasks it'd like.

This what LMKD currently is - a userspace RT process.
My point was that this page allocation queue that you implemented
can't be implemented in userspace, at least not without extensive
communication with kernel.

> Thanks,
> Sultan

Thanks,
Suren.