From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] virtio_balloon: disable oom killer when fill balloon
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:22:12 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110426162438.F393.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikXR-A-za7dd6FDqc6B0fLhi4LbJg@mail.gmail.com>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:38 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >> When memory pressure is high, virtio ballooning will probably cause oom killing.
> >> Even if alloc_page with GFP_NORETRY itself does not directly trigger oom it
> >> will make memory becoming low then memory alloc of other processes will trigger
> >> oom killing. It is not desired behaviour.
> >>
> >> Here disable oom killer in fill_balloon to address this issue.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/virtio/virtio_balloon.c | 3 +++
> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/virtio/virtio_balloon.c 2010-10-13 10:14:38.000000000 +0800
> >> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/virtio/virtio_balloon.c 2011-04-26 11:38:43.979785141 +0800
> >> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/freezer.h>
> >> #include <linux/delay.h>
> >> #include <linux/slab.h>
> >> +#include <linux/oom.h>
> >>
> >> struct virtio_balloon
> >> {
> >> @@ -102,6 +103,7 @@ static void fill_balloon(struct virtio_b
> >> /* We can only do one array worth at a time. */
> >> num = min(num, ARRAY_SIZE(vb->pfns));
> >>
> >> + oom_killer_disable();
> >
> > I think this patch need proper comment at least. My first impression
> > is, "Hm, __GFP_NORETRY should prevent oom, why is this necessary?".
> > So, this actually prevent _another_ thread call out_of_memory().
>
> Thanks, will fix.
>
> > Also, Here doesn't have any exclusion against hibernation (ie another
> > oom_killer_disable() callsite). It should be described why lock is
> > unnecessary.
>
> Good catch, but lock should better be handled in oom_killer_disable
> function itself,
> What do you think?
>
> For oom killer multi user there's more problem, if process A disable
> oom killer then Process B enable oom killer, it is not A want to see,
> Any thoughts?
If baloon and hibernation don't have any implicit exclusion, you are
right.
Sorry, I don't virtio internal. please don't ask me.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-26 7:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-26 5:29 Dave Young
2011-04-26 6:38 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-04-26 7:09 ` Dave Young
2011-04-26 7:22 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2011-04-26 8:47 ` Dave Young
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110426162438.F393.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=hidave.darkstar@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®