From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] memcg: do not report racy no-eligible OOM tasks
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:01:08 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201810230101.w9N118i3042448@www262.sakura.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181022120308.GB18839@dhcp22.suse.cz>
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.
mm/memcontrol.c | 3 ++-
mm/oom_kill.c | 10 ++++++++++
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index e79cb59..2c1e1ac 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1382,7 +1382,8 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
};
bool ret;
- mutex_lock(&oom_lock);
+ if (mutex_lock_killable(&oom_lock))
+ return true;
ret = out_of_memory(&oc);
mutex_unlock(&oom_lock);
return ret;
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index f10aa53..e453bad 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -1055,6 +1055,16 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
unsigned long freed = 0;
enum oom_constraint constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
+ /*
+ * It is possible that multi-threaded OOM victims get
+ * task_will_free_mem(current) == false when the OOM reaper quickly
+ * set MMF_OOM_SKIP. But since we know that tsk_is_oom_victim() == true
+ * tasks won't loop forever (unleess it is a __GFP_NOFAIL allocation
+ * request), we don't need to select next OOM victim.
+ */
+ if (tsk_is_oom_victim(current) && !(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
+ return true;
+
if (oom_killer_disabled)
return false;
--
1.8.3.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-23 1:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-22 7:13 [RFC PATCH 0/2] oom, memcg: do not report racy no-eligible OOM Michal Hocko
2018-10-22 7:13 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: marks all killed tasks as oom victims Michal Hocko
2018-10-22 7:58 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-10-22 8:48 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-22 9:42 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-10-22 10:43 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-22 10:56 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-10-22 11:12 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-22 11:16 ` [RFC PATCH v2 " Michal Hocko
2018-10-22 7:13 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] memcg: do not report racy no-eligible OOM tasks Michal Hocko
2018-10-22 11:45 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-10-22 12:03 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-22 13:20 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-10-22 13:43 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-22 15:12 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-10-23 1:01 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2018-10-23 11:42 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-23 12:10 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-23 12:33 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-10-23 12:48 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-26 14:25 ` Johannes Weiner
2018-10-26 19:25 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-26 19:33 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-27 1:10 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-11-06 9:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-11-06 12:42 ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-07 9:45 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-11-07 10:08 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-07 12:43 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-12-12 10:23 ` Tetsuo Handa
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=201810230101.w9N118i3042448@www262.sakura.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--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).