Re: [RFC 2/4] mm: replace TIF_MEMDIE checks by tsk_is_oom_victim

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>]

On Sun 04-09-16 10:49:52, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 9ee178ba7b71..df58733ca48e 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -1899,7 +1899,7 @@ static int try_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> >  	 * bypass the last charges so that they can exit quickly and
> >  	 * free their memory.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) ||
> > +	if (unlikely(tsk_is_oom_victim(current) ||
> >  		     fatal_signal_pending(current) ||
> >  		     current->flags & PF_EXITING))
> >  		goto force;
> 
> Does this test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) (or tsk_is_oom_victim(current)) make sense?
> 
> If current thread is OOM-killed, SIGKILL must be pending before arriving at
> do_exit() and PF_EXITING must be set after arriving at do_exit(). But I can't
> find locations which do memory allocation between clearing SIGKILL and setting
> PF_EXITING.
> 
> When can test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) == T (or tsk_is_oom_victim(current) == T) &&
> fatal_signal_pending(current) == F && (current->flags & PF_EXITING) == 0 happen?

Maybe you are right. I would have to double check. I am still drown in
a pile of emails after vacation so it will take some time to do that.
Anyway I believe this would be worth a separate patch. This one just
mechanically replaces TIF_MEMDIE check by tsk_is_oom_victim.

> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > index b11977585c7b..e26529edcee3 100644
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -1078,7 +1078,7 @@ void pagefault_out_of_memory(void)
> >  		 * be a racing OOM victim for which oom_killer_disable()
> >  		 * is waiting for.
> >  		 */
> > -		WARN_ON(test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE));
> > +		WARN_ON(tsk_is_oom_victim(current));
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	mutex_unlock(&oom_lock);
> 
> Does this WARN_ON() make sense?
> 
> When some user thread called oom_killer_disable(), there are running
> kernel threads but is no running user threads except the one which
> called oom_killer_disable(). Since oom_killer_disable() waits for
> oom_lock, out_of_memory() called from here shall not return false
> before oom_killer_disable() sets oom_killer_disabled = true. Thus,
> possible situation out_of_memory() called from here can return false
> are limited to
> 
>  (a) the one which triggered pagefaults after returning from
>      oom_killer_disable()
>  (b) An OOM victim which was thawed triggered pagefaults from do_exit()
>      after the one which called oom_killer_disable() released oom_lock
>  (c) kernel threads which triggered pagefaults after use_mm()
> 
> . And since kernel threads are not subjected to mark_oom_victim(),
> test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) == F (or tsk_is_oom_victim(current) == F)
> for kernel threads. Thus, possible situation out_of_memory() called from
> here can return false and we hit this WARN_ON() is limited to (b).
> 
> Even if (a) or (b) is possible, does continuously emitting backtraces
> help? It seems to me that the system is under OOM livelock situation and
> we need to take a different action (e.g. try to allocate a page using
> ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS in order to make the pagefault be solved, and panic()
> if failed) than emitting same backtraces forever.

I have to think about this some more, so I cannot give it any answer
right now. But again, this is just a mechanical change. If your concern
is correct and the WARN_ON is really pointless it should be similarly
pointless with the TIF_MEMDIE check unless I am missing something.

-- 
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>