From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>,
phillip@squashfs.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] squashfs: enable __GFP_FS in ->readpage to prevent hang in mem alloc
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 19:51:27 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00ff5d2d-a50f-4730-db8a-cea3d7a3eef7@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181217093337.GC30879@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 2018/12/17 18:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 16-12-18 19:51:57, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> [...]
>> Ah, yes, that makes perfect sense. Thank you for the explanation.
>>
>> I wonder if the correct fix, however, is not to move the check for
>> GFP_NOFS in out_of_memory() down to below the check whether to kill
>> the current task. That would solve your problem, and I don't _think_
>> it would cause any new ones. Michal, you touched this code last, what
>> do you think?
>
> What do you mean exactly? Whether we kill a current task or something
> else doesn't change much on the fact that NOFS is a reclaim restricted
> context and we might kill too early. If the fs can do GFP_FS then it is
> obviously a better thing to do because FS metadata can be reclaimed as
> well and therefore there is potentially less memory pressure on
> application data.
>
I interpreted "to move the check for GFP_NOFS in out_of_memory() down to
below the check whether to kill the current task" as
@@ -1077,15 +1077,6 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
}
/*
- * The OOM killer does not compensate for IO-less reclaim.
- * pagefault_out_of_memory lost its gfp context so we have to
- * make sure exclude 0 mask - all other users should have at least
- * ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM to get here.
- */
- if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
- return true;
-
- /*
* Check if there were limitations on the allocation (only relevant for
* NUMA and memcg) that may require different handling.
*/
@@ -1104,6 +1095,19 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
}
select_bad_process(oc);
+
+ /*
+ * The OOM killer does not compensate for IO-less reclaim.
+ * pagefault_out_of_memory lost its gfp context so we have to
+ * make sure exclude 0 mask - all other users should have at least
+ * ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM to get here.
+ */
+ if ((oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) && oc->chosen &&
+ oc->chosen != (void *)-1UL && oc->chosen != current) {
+ put_task_struct(oc->chosen);
+ return true;
+ }
+
/* Found nothing?!?! */
if (!oc->chosen) {
dump_header(oc, NULL);
which is prefixed by "the correct fix is not".
Behaving like sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task == 1 if __GFP_FS is not used
will not be the correct fix. But ...
Hou Tao wrote:
> There is no need to disable __GFP_FS in ->readpage:
> * It's a read-only fs, so there will be no dirty/writeback page and
> there will be no deadlock against the caller's locked page
is read-only filesystem sufficient for safe to use __GFP_FS?
Isn't "whether it is safe to use __GFP_FS" depends on "whether fs locks
are held or not" rather than "whether fs has dirty/writeback page or not" ?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-17 10:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-04 2:08 [PATCH] squashfs: enable __GFP_FS in ->readpage to prevent hang in mem alloc Hou Tao
2018-12-06 1:14 ` Hou Tao
2018-12-13 2:18 ` Hou Tao
2018-12-15 13:24 ` Hou Tao
2018-12-15 14:38 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-12-16 9:38 ` Hou Tao
2018-12-17 3:51 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-12-17 9:33 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-17 10:51 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2018-12-17 12:25 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-12-17 14:10 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-17 14:41 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-12-17 14:49 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-18 6:06 ` Hou Tao
2018-12-18 11:32 ` 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=00ff5d2d-a50f-4730-db8a-cea3d7a3eef7@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=houtao1@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=phillip@squashfs.org.uk \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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).