From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the #PF
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:50:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170623125056.GY5308@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170610084901.GB12347@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Sat 10-06-17 10:49:01, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 09-06-17 16:46:42, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 09-06-17 10:08:53, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 04:36:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Does anybody see any problem with the patch or I can send it for the
> > > > inclusion?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri 19-05-17 13:26:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Any allocation failure during the #PF path will return with VM_FAULT_OOM
> > > > > which in turn results in pagefault_out_of_memory. This can happen for
> > > > > 2 different reasons. a) Memcg is out of memory and we rely on
> > > > > mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize to perform the memcg OOM handling or b)
> > > > > normal allocation fails.
> > > > >
> > > > > The later is quite problematic because allocation paths already trigger
> > > > > out_of_memory and the page allocator tries really hard to not fail
> > > > > allocations. Anyway, if the OOM killer has been already invoked there
> > > > > is no reason to invoke it again from the #PF path. Especially when the
> > > > > OOM condition might be gone by that time and we have no way to find out
> > > > > other than allocate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Moreover if the allocation failed and the OOM killer hasn't been
> > > > > invoked then we are unlikely to do the right thing from the #PF context
> > > > > because we have already lost the allocation context and restictions and
> > > > > therefore might oom kill a task from a different NUMA domain.
> > > > >
> > > > > An allocation might fail also when the current task is the oom victim
> > > > > and there are no memory reserves left and we should simply bail out
> > > > > from the #PF rather than invoking out_of_memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > This all suggests that there is no legitimate reason to trigger
> > > > > out_of_memory from pagefault_out_of_memory so drop it. Just to be sure
> > > > > that no #PF path returns with VM_FAULT_OOM without allocation print a
> > > > > warning that this is happening before we restart the #PF.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > >
> > > I don't agree with this patch.
> > >
> > > The warning you replace the oom call with indicates that we never
> > > expect a VM_FAULT_OOM to leak to this point. But should there be a
> > > leak, it's infinitely better to tickle the OOM killer again - even if
> > > that call is then fairly inaccurate and without alloc context - than
> > > infinite re-invocations of the #PF when the VM_FAULT_OOM comes from a
> > > context - existing or future - that isn't allowed to trigger the OOM.
> >
> > I disagree. Retrying the page fault while dropping all the locks
> > on the way and still being in the killable context should be preferable
> > to a system wide disruptive action like the OOM killer.
>
> And just to clarify a bit. The OOM killer should be invoked whenever
> appropriate from the allocation context. If we decide to fail the
> allocation in the PF path then we can safely roll back and retry the
> whole PF. This has an advantage that any locks held while doing the
> allocation will be released and that alone can help to make a further
> progress. Moreover we can relax retry-for-ever _inside_ the allocator
> semantic for the PF path and fail allocations when we cannot make
> further progress even after we hit the OOM condition or we do stall for
> too long. This would have a nice side effect that PF would be a killable
> context from the page allocator POV. From the user space POV there is no
> difference between retrying the PF and looping inside the allocator,
> right?
>
> That being said, late just-in-case OOM killer invocation is not only
> suboptimal it also disallows us to make further changes in that area.
>
> Or am I oversimplifying or missing something here?
I am sorry to keep reviving this. I simply do not understand why the
code actually make sense. If am missing something I would like to hear
what it is. Then I will shut up (I promiss) ;)
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-23 12:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-19 11:26 [PATCH 0/2] fix premature OOM killer Michal Hocko
2017-05-19 11:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: make sure that the oom victim uses memory reserves Michal Hocko
2017-05-19 12:12 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-05-19 12:46 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-22 15:06 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-05-19 11:26 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the #PF Michal Hocko
2017-05-19 13:02 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-05-19 13:22 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-19 15:22 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-05-19 15:50 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-19 23:43 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-05-22 9:31 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-08 14:36 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-09 14:08 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-06-09 14:46 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-10 8:49 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-10 11:57 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the#PF Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-12 7:39 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-12 10:48 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the #PF Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-12 11:06 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-23 12:50 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-05-19 11:37 ` [PATCH 0/2] fix premature OOM killer Tetsuo Handa
2017-05-19 12:47 ` Michal Hocko
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=20170623125056.GY5308@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).