Re: general protection fault in oom_unkillable_task

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>]

On Mon 17-06-19 18:56:47, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/06/17 15:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sat 15-06-19 09:11:37, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 6:50 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> >>> index 5a58778c91d4..43eb479a5dc7 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> >>> @@ -161,8 +161,8 @@ static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p,
> >>>                 return true;
> >>>
> >>>         /* When mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() and p is not member of the group */
> >>> -       if (memcg && !task_in_mem_cgroup(p, memcg))
> >>> -               return true;
> >>> +       if (memcg)
> >>> +               return false;
> >>
> >> This will break the dump_tasks() usage of oom_unkillable_task(). We
> >> can change dump_tasks() to traverse processes like
> >> mem_cgroup_scan_tasks() for memcg OOMs.
> > 
> > Right you are. Doing a similar trick to the oom victim selection is
> > indeed better. We should really strive to not doing a global process
> > iteration when we can do a targeted scan. Care to send a patch?
> 
> I posted a patch that (as a side effect) avoids oom_unkillable_task() from dump_tasks() at
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1558519686-16057-2-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/ .
> What do you think?

I am sorry but I didn't get to look at this series yet. Anyway, changing
the dump_tasks to use a cgroup iterator for the memcg oom sounds like a
straight forward thing to do without making much more changes around.
Global task list iteration under a single RCU is a more complex problem
that is not limited to the OOM path.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs