From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: peter enderborg <peter.enderborg@sony.com>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Bring OOM notifier callbacks to outside of OOM killer.
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:12:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180625141246.GN28965@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9a14d554-6470-e0d6-19cc-1ecec17a47c7@sony.com>
On Mon 25-06-18 16:04:04, peter enderborg wrote:
> On 06/25/2018 03:07 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Mon 25-06-18 15:03:40, peter enderborg wrote:
> >> On 06/20/2018 01:55 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> On Wed 20-06-18 20:20:38, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >>>> Sleeping with oom_lock held can cause AB-BA lockup bug because
> >>>> __alloc_pages_may_oom() does not wait for oom_lock. Since
> >>>> blocking_notifier_call_chain() in out_of_memory() might sleep, sleeping
> >>>> with oom_lock held is currently an unavoidable problem.
> >>> Could you be more specific about the potential deadlock? Sleeping while
> >>> holding oom lock is certainly not nice but I do not see how that would
> >>> result in a deadlock assuming that the sleeping context doesn't sleep on
> >>> the memory allocation obviously.
> >> It is a mutex you are supposed to be able to sleep.A It's even exported.
> > What do you mean? oom_lock is certainly not exported for general use. It
> > is not local to oom_killer.c just because it is needed in other _mm_
> > code.
> >
>
> ItA is in the oom.h file include/linux/oom.h, if it that sensitive it should
> be in mm/ and a documented note about the special rules. It is only used
> in drivers/tty/sysrq.c and that be replaced by a help function in mm that
> do theA oom stuff.
Well, there are many things defined in kernel header files and not meant
for wider use. Using random locks is generally discouraged I would say
unless you are sure you know what you are doing. We could do some more
work to hide internals for sure, though.
> >>>> As a preparation for not to sleep with oom_lock held, this patch brings
> >>>> OOM notifier callbacks to outside of OOM killer, with two small behavior
> >>>> changes explained below.
> >>> Can we just eliminate this ugliness and remove it altogether? We do not
> >>> have that many notifiers. Is there anything fundamental that would
> >>> prevent us from moving them to shrinkers instead?
> >> @Hocko Do you remember the lowmemorykiller from android? Some things
> >> might not be the right thing for shrinkers.
> > Just that lmk did it wrong doesn't mean others have to follow.
> >
> If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. (I dona??t argument that it was right)
> But if you dona??t have a way to interact with the memory system we will get attempts like lmk.A
> Oom notifiers and vmpressure is for this task better than shrinkers.
A lack of feature should be a trigger for a discussion rather than a
quick hack that seems to work for a particular usecase and live out of
tree, then get to staging and hope it will fix itself. Seriously, the
kernel development is not a nail hammering.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-25 14:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-20 11:20 [PATCH] mm,oom: Bring OOM notifier callbacks to outside of OOM killer Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-20 11:55 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-20 12:21 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-20 13:07 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-25 13:03 ` peter enderborg
2018-06-25 13:07 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-25 14:02 ` peter enderborg
2018-06-25 14:04 ` peter enderborg
2018-06-25 14:12 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2018-06-20 22:36 ` David Rientjes
2018-06-21 7:31 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-21 11:27 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-21 12:05 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-26 17:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-06-26 20:10 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-26 23:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-06-27 10:52 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-27 14:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-06-27 7:22 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-27 14:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-06-28 11:39 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-28 21:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-06-29 9:04 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-29 12:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-06-29 13:26 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-30 17:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-02 12:00 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-02 21:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-03 7:24 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-03 16:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-06 5:39 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-06 12:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-06-29 14:35 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-30 17:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20180625141246.GN28965@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=peter.enderborg@sony.com \
--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 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).