From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E3FC46475 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:48:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 355DA20665 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:48:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 355DA20665 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728081AbeJWVMK (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:12:10 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35978 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726953AbeJWVMK (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:12:10 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28684AF04; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:48:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:48:47 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes , Andrew Morton , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] memcg: do not report racy no-eligible OOM tasks Message-ID: <20181023124847.GT18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20181022120308.GB18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201810230101.w9N118i3042448@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20181023114246.GR18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20181023121055.GS18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 23-10-18 21:33:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/10/23 21:10, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 23-10-18 13:42:46, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> On Tue 23-10-18 10:01:08, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > >>> Michal Hocko wrote: > >>>> On Mon 22-10-18 20:45:17, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > >>>>>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > >>>>>> index e79cb59552d9..a9dfed29967b 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > >>>>>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > >>>>>> @@ -1380,10 +1380,22 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask, > >>>>>> .gfp_mask = gfp_mask, > >>>>>> .order = order, > >>>>>> }; > >>>>>> - bool ret; > >>>>>> + bool ret = true; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> mutex_lock(&oom_lock); > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> + /* > >>>>>> + * multi-threaded tasks might race with oom_reaper and gain > >>>>>> + * MMF_OOM_SKIP before reaching out_of_memory which can lead > >>>>>> + * to out_of_memory failure if the task is the last one in > >>>>>> + * memcg which would be a false possitive failure reported > >>>>>> + */ > >>>>>> + if (tsk_is_oom_victim(current)) > >>>>>> + goto unlock; > >>>>>> + > >>>>> > >>>>> This is not wrong but is strange. We can use mutex_lock_killable(&oom_lock) > >>>>> so that any killed threads no longer wait for oom_lock. > >>>> > >>>> tsk_is_oom_victim is stronger because it doesn't depend on > >>>> fatal_signal_pending which might be cleared throughout the exit process. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I still want to propose this. No need to be memcg OOM specific. > >> > >> Well, I maintain what I've said [1] about simplicity and specific fix > >> for a specific issue. Especially in the tricky code like this where all > >> the consequences are far more subtle than they seem to be. > >> > >> This is obviously a matter of taste but I don't see much point discussing > >> this back and forth for ever. Unless there is a general agreement that > >> the above is less appropriate then I am willing to consider a different > >> change but I simply do not have energy to nit pick for ever. > >> > >> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181022134315.GF18839@dhcp22.suse.cz > > > > In other words. Having a memcg specific fix means, well, a memcg > > maintenance burden. Like any other memcg specific oom decisions we > > already have. So are you OK with that Johannes or you would like to see > > a more generic fix which might turn out to be more complex? > > > > I don't know what "that Johannes" refers to. let me rephrase Johannes, are you OK with that (memcg specific fix) or you would like to see a more generic fix which might turn out to be more complex. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs