From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751582AbeA3Jvj (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2018 04:51:39 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38045 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751249AbeA3Jvh (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2018 04:51:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:51:34 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Florian Westphal Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Tetsuo Handa , davem@davemloft.net, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, aarcange@redhat.com, yang.s@alibaba-inc.com, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, guro@fb.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [netfilter-core] kernel panic: Out of memory and no killable processes... (2) Message-ID: <20180130095134.GU21609@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <001a1144b0caee2e8c0563d9de0a@google.com> <201801290020.w0T0KK8V015938@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20180129072357.GD5906@breakpoint.cc> <20180129082649.sysf57wlp7i7ltb2@node.shutemov.name> <20180129165722.GF5906@breakpoint.cc> <20180129182811.fze4vrb5zd5cojmr@node.shutemov.name> <20180129223522.GG5906@breakpoint.cc> <20180130075226.GL21609@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180130081127.GH5906@breakpoint.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180130081127.GH5906@breakpoint.cc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 30-01-18 09:11:27, Florian Westphal wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 29-01-18 23:35:22, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > [...] > > > > I hate what I'm saying, but I guess we need some tunable here. > > > > Not sure what exactly. > > > > > > Would memcg help? > > > > That really depends. I would have to check whether vmalloc path obeys > > __GFP_ACCOUNT (I suspect it does except for page tables allocations but > > that shouldn't be a big deal). But then the other potential problem is > > the life time of the xt_table_info (or other potentially large) data > > structures. Are they bound to any process life time. > > No. > > > Because if they are > > not then the OOM killer will not help. The OOM panic earlier in this > > thread suggests it doesn't because the test case managed to eat all the > > available memory and killed all the eligible tasks which didn't help. > > Yes, which is why we do not want any OOM killer invocation in first > place... The problem is that as soon as you eat that memory and ask for more until you fail with ENOMEM then the OOM is simply unavoidable. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs