All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Andrea Argangeli <andrea@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 09:12:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170712071241.GA28912@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1707111336250.60183@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Tue 11-07-17 13:40:04, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > This?
> > ---
> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > index 5dc0ff22d567..e155d1d8064f 100644
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -470,11 +470,14 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
> >  {
> >  	struct mmu_gather tlb;
> >  	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > -	bool ret = true;
> >  
> >  	if (!down_read_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem))
> >  		return false;
> >  
> > +	/* There is nothing to reap so bail out without signs in the log */
> > +	if (!mm->mmap)
> > +		goto unlock;
> > +
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Tell all users of get_user/copy_from_user etc... that the content
> >  	 * is no longer stable. No barriers really needed because unmapping
> > @@ -508,9 +511,10 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
> >  			K(get_mm_counter(mm, MM_ANONPAGES)),
> >  			K(get_mm_counter(mm, MM_FILEPAGES)),
> >  			K(get_mm_counter(mm, MM_SHMEMPAGES)));
> > +unlock:
> >  	up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >  
> > -	return ret;
> > +	return true;
> >  }
> >  
> >  #define MAX_OOM_REAP_RETRIES 10
> 
> Yes, this folded in with the original RFC patch appears to work better 
> with light testing.

Yes folding it into the original patch was the plan. I would really
appreciate some Tested-by here.

> However, I think MAX_OOM_REAP_RETRIES and/or the timeout of HZ/10 needs to 
> be increased as well to address the issue that Tetsuo pointed out.  The 
> oom reaper shouldn't be required to do any work unless it is resolving a 
> livelock, and that scenario should be relatively rare.  The oom killer 
> being a natural ultra slow path, I think it would be justifiable to wait 
> longer or retry more times than simply 1 second before declaring that 
> reaping is not possible.  It reduces the likelihood of additional oom 
> killing.

I believe that this is an independent issue and as such it should be
addressed separately along with some data backing up that decision. I am
not against improving the waiting logic. We would need some requeuing
when we cannot reap the victim because we cannot really wait too much
time on a single oom victim considering there might be many victims
queued (because of memcg ooms). This would obviously need some more code
and I am willing to implement that but I would like to see that this is
something that is a real problem first.

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Andrea Argangeli <andrea@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 09:12:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170712071241.GA28912@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1707111336250.60183@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Tue 11-07-17 13:40:04, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > This?
> > ---
> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > index 5dc0ff22d567..e155d1d8064f 100644
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -470,11 +470,14 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
> >  {
> >  	struct mmu_gather tlb;
> >  	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > -	bool ret = true;
> >  
> >  	if (!down_read_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem))
> >  		return false;
> >  
> > +	/* There is nothing to reap so bail out without signs in the log */
> > +	if (!mm->mmap)
> > +		goto unlock;
> > +
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Tell all users of get_user/copy_from_user etc... that the content
> >  	 * is no longer stable. No barriers really needed because unmapping
> > @@ -508,9 +511,10 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
> >  			K(get_mm_counter(mm, MM_ANONPAGES)),
> >  			K(get_mm_counter(mm, MM_FILEPAGES)),
> >  			K(get_mm_counter(mm, MM_SHMEMPAGES)));
> > +unlock:
> >  	up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >  
> > -	return ret;
> > +	return true;
> >  }
> >  
> >  #define MAX_OOM_REAP_RETRIES 10
> 
> Yes, this folded in with the original RFC patch appears to work better 
> with light testing.

Yes folding it into the original patch was the plan. I would really
appreciate some Tested-by here.

> However, I think MAX_OOM_REAP_RETRIES and/or the timeout of HZ/10 needs to 
> be increased as well to address the issue that Tetsuo pointed out.  The 
> oom reaper shouldn't be required to do any work unless it is resolving a 
> livelock, and that scenario should be relatively rare.  The oom killer 
> being a natural ultra slow path, I think it would be justifiable to wait 
> longer or retry more times than simply 1 second before declaring that 
> reaping is not possible.  It reduces the likelihood of additional oom 
> killing.

I believe that this is an independent issue and as such it should be
addressed separately along with some data backing up that decision. I am
not against improving the waiting logic. We would need some requeuing
when we cannot reap the victim because we cannot really wait too much
time on a single oom victim considering there might be many victims
queued (because of memcg ooms). This would obviously need some more code
and I am willing to implement that but I would like to see that this is
something that is a real problem first.

Thanks!
-- 
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-07-12  7:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-06-26 13:03 [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap Michal Hocko
2017-06-26 13:03 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-27 10:52 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-27 10:52   ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-27 11:26   ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-27 11:26     ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-27 11:39     ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-27 11:39       ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-27 12:03       ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-27 12:03         ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-27 13:31         ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-27 13:31           ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-27 13:55           ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-27 13:55             ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-27 14:26             ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-27 14:26               ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-27 14:41               ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-27 14:41                 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11  0:01   ` David Rientjes
2017-07-11  0:01     ` David Rientjes
2017-06-29  8:46 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-29  8:46   ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-19  5:55   ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-19  5:55     ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-20  1:18     ` Hugh Dickins
2017-07-20  1:18       ` Hugh Dickins
2017-07-20 13:05       ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-20 13:05         ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-24  6:39         ` Hugh Dickins
2017-07-24  6:39           ` Hugh Dickins
2017-07-10 23:55 ` David Rientjes
2017-07-10 23:55   ` David Rientjes
2017-07-11  6:58   ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11  6:58     ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11 20:40     ` David Rientjes
2017-07-11 20:40       ` David Rientjes
2017-07-12  7:12       ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-07-12  7:12         ` 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=20170712071241.GA28912@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andrea@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=rientjes@google.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.