All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: [PATCH] mm, oom: remove sleep from under oom_lock
Date: Mon,  9 Jul 2018 09:47:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180709074706.30635-1-mhocko@kernel.org> (raw)

From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

Tetsuo has pointed out that since 27ae357fa82b ("mm, oom: fix concurrent
munlock and oom reaper unmap, v3") we have a strong synchronization
between the oom_killer and victim's exiting because both have to take
the oom_lock. Therefore the original heuristic to sleep for a short time
in out_of_memory doesn't serve the original purpose.

Moreover Tetsuo has noticed that the short sleep can be more harmful
than actually useful. Hammering the system with many processes can lead
to a starvation when the task holding the oom_lock can block for a
long time (minutes) and block any further progress because the
oom_reaper depends on the oom_lock as well.

Drop the short sleep from out_of_memory when we hold the lock. Keep the
sleep when the trylock fails to throttle the concurrent OOM paths a bit.
This should be solved in a more reasonable way (e.g. sleep proportional
to the time spent in the active reclaiming etc.) but this is much more
complex thing to achieve. This is a quick fixup to remove a stale code.

Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
---
 mm/oom_kill.c | 8 +-------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 8ba6cb88cf58..ed9d473c571e 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -1077,15 +1077,9 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
 		dump_header(oc, NULL);
 		panic("Out of memory and no killable processes...\n");
 	}
-	if (oc->chosen && oc->chosen != (void *)-1UL) {
+	if (oc->chosen && oc->chosen != (void *)-1UL)
 		oom_kill_process(oc, !is_memcg_oom(oc) ? "Out of memory" :
 				 "Memory cgroup out of memory");
-		/*
-		 * Give the killed process a good chance to exit before trying
-		 * to allocate memory again.
-		 */
-		schedule_timeout_killable(1);
-	}
 	return !!oc->chosen;
 }
 
-- 
2.18.0


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: [PATCH] mm, oom: remove sleep from under oom_lock
Date: Mon,  9 Jul 2018 09:47:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180709074706.30635-1-mhocko@kernel.org> (raw)

From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

Tetsuo has pointed out that since 27ae357fa82b ("mm, oom: fix concurrent
munlock and oom reaper unmap, v3") we have a strong synchronization
between the oom_killer and victim's exiting because both have to take
the oom_lock. Therefore the original heuristic to sleep for a short time
in out_of_memory doesn't serve the original purpose.

Moreover Tetsuo has noticed that the short sleep can be more harmful
than actually useful. Hammering the system with many processes can lead
to a starvation when the task holding the oom_lock can block for a
long time (minutes) and block any further progress because the
oom_reaper depends on the oom_lock as well.

Drop the short sleep from out_of_memory when we hold the lock. Keep the
sleep when the trylock fails to throttle the concurrent OOM paths a bit.
This should be solved in a more reasonable way (e.g. sleep proportional
to the time spent in the active reclaiming etc.) but this is much more
complex thing to achieve. This is a quick fixup to remove a stale code.

Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
---
 mm/oom_kill.c | 8 +-------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 8ba6cb88cf58..ed9d473c571e 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -1077,15 +1077,9 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
 		dump_header(oc, NULL);
 		panic("Out of memory and no killable processes...\n");
 	}
-	if (oc->chosen && oc->chosen != (void *)-1UL) {
+	if (oc->chosen && oc->chosen != (void *)-1UL)
 		oom_kill_process(oc, !is_memcg_oom(oc) ? "Out of memory" :
 				 "Memory cgroup out of memory");
-		/*
-		 * Give the killed process a good chance to exit before trying
-		 * to allocate memory again.
-		 */
-		schedule_timeout_killable(1);
-	}
 	return !!oc->chosen;
 }
 
-- 
2.18.0

             reply	other threads:[~2018-07-09  7:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-09  7:47 Michal Hocko [this message]
2018-07-09  7:47 ` [PATCH] mm, oom: remove sleep from under oom_lock Michal Hocko
2018-07-09 22:49 ` David Rientjes
2018-07-10  9:43   ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-10 18:55     ` David Rientjes
2018-07-10 21:12       ` David Rientjes
2018-07-11  8:59         ` 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=20180709074706.30635-1-mhocko@kernel.org \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.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.