From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 19:35:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160530173505.GA25287@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1464613556-16708-7-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>
On 05/30, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> task_will_free_mem is rather weak.
I was thinking about the similar change because I noticed that try_oom_reaper()
is very, very wrong.
To the point I think that we need another change for stable which simply removes
spin_lock_irq(sighand->siglock) from try_oom_reaper(). It buys nothing, we can
check signal_group_exit() (which is wrong too ;) lockless, and at the same time
the kernel can crash because we can hit ->siglock == NULL.
So I do think this change is good in general.
I think that task_will_free_mem() should be un-inlined, and __task_will_free_mem()
should go into mm/oom-kill.c... but this is minor.
> -static inline bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
> +static inline bool __task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
> {
> struct signal_struct *sig = task->signal;
>
> @@ -119,16 +119,69 @@ static inline bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
> if (sig->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP)
> return false;
>
> - if (!(task->flags & PF_EXITING))
> + if (!(task->flags & PF_EXITING || fatal_signal_pending(task)))
> return false;
>
> /* Make sure that the whole thread group is going down */
> - if (!thread_group_empty(task) && !(sig->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT))
> + if (!thread_group_empty(task) &&
> + !(sig->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT || fatal_signal_pending(task)))
> return false;
>
> return true;
> }
Well, let me suggest this again. I think it should do
if (SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP)
return false;
if (SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT)
return true;
if (thread_group_empty() && PF_EXITING)
return true;
return false;
we do not need fatal_signal_pending(), in this case SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT should
be set (ignoring some bugs with sub-namespaces which we need to fix anyway).
At the same time, we do not want to return false if PF_EXITING is not set
if SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT is set.
> +static inline bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> + struct mm_struct *mm = NULL;
> + struct task_struct *p;
> + bool ret;
> +
> + /*
> + * If the process has passed exit_mm we have to skip it because
> + * we have lost a link to other tasks sharing this mm, we do not
> + * have anything to reap and the task might then get stuck waiting
> + * for parent as zombie and we do not want it to hold TIF_MEMDIE
> + */
> + p = find_lock_task_mm(task);
> + if (!p)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (!__task_will_free_mem(p)) {
> + task_unlock(p);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + mm = p->mm;
> + if (atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 1) {
this is sub-optimal, we should probably take signal->live or ->nr_threads
into account... but OK, we can do this later.
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + for_each_process(p) {
> + ret = __task_will_free_mem(p);
> + if (!ret)
> + break;
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
Yes, I agree very much.
But it seems you forgot to add the process_shares_mm() check into this loop?
and perhaps it also makes sense to add
if (same_thread_group(tsk, p))
continue;
This should not really matter, we know that __task_will_free_mem(p) should return
true. Just to make it more clear.
And. I think this needs smp_rmb() at the end of the loop (assuming we have the
process_shares_mm() check here). We need it to ensure that we read p->mm before
we read next_task(), to avoid the race with exit() + clone(CLONE_VM).
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-30 17:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-30 13:05 [PATCH 0/6 -v2] Handle oom bypass more gracefully Michal Hocko
2016-05-30 13:05 ` [PATCH 1/6] proc, oom: drop bogus task_lock and mm check Michal Hocko
2016-05-30 13:49 ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-05-30 17:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-05-31 7:32 ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-31 22:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-01 6:53 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-01 10:41 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-01 10:48 ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-30 13:05 ` [PATCH 2/6] proc, oom_adj: extract oom_score_adj setting into a helper Michal Hocko
2016-05-30 13:05 ` [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj Michal Hocko
2016-05-31 7:41 ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-30 13:05 ` [PATCH 4/6] mm, oom: skip vforked tasks from being selected Michal Hocko
2016-05-30 19:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-05-31 7:42 ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-31 21:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-01 7:09 ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-30 13:05 ` [PATCH 5/6] mm, oom: kill all tasks sharing the mm Michal Hocko
2016-05-30 18:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-05-31 7:43 ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-31 21:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-05-30 13:05 ` [PATCH 6/6] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko
2016-05-30 17:35 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2016-05-31 7:46 ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-31 22:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-01 7:03 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-02 14:03 ` [PATCH 7/6] mm, oom: task_will_free_mem should skip oom_reaped tasks Michal Hocko
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-05-26 12:40 [PATCH 0/5] Handle oom bypass more gracefully Michal Hocko
2016-05-26 12:40 ` [PATCH 6/6] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko
2016-05-26 14:11 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-05-26 14:23 ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-26 14:41 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-05-26 14:56 ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-27 11:07 ` 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=20160530173505.GA25287@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.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).