From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
mgorman@suse.de, rientjes@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 15:10:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161205141009.GJ30758@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201612052245.HDB21880.OHJMOOQFFSVLtF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On Mon 05-12-16 22:45:19, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > __alloc_pages_may_oom makes sure to skip the OOM killer depending on
> > the allocation request. This includes lowmem requests, costly high
> > order requests and others. For a long time __GFP_NOFAIL acted as an
> > override for all those rules. This is not documented and it can be quite
> > surprising as well. E.g. GFP_NOFS requests are not invoking the OOM
> > killer but GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL does so if we try to convert some of
> > the existing open coded loops around allocator to nofail request (and we
> > have done that in the past) then such a change would have a non trivial
> > side effect which is not obvious. Note that the primary motivation for
> > skipping the OOM killer is to prevent from pre-mature invocation.
> >
> > The exception has been added by 82553a937f12 ("oom: invoke oom killer
> > for __GFP_NOFAIL"). The changelog points out that the oom killer has to
> > be invoked otherwise the request would be looping for ever. But this
> > argument is rather weak because the OOM killer doesn't really guarantee
> > any forward progress for those exceptional cases - e.g. it will hardly
> > help to form costly order - I believe we certainly do not want to kill
> > all processes and eventually panic the system just because there is a
> > nasty driver asking for order-9 page with GFP_NOFAIL not realizing all
> > the consequences - it is much better this request would loop for ever
> > than the massive system disruption, lowmem is also highly unlikely to be
> > freed during OOM killer and GFP_NOFS request could trigger while there
> > is still a lot of memory pinned by filesystems.
>
> I disagree. I believe that panic caused by OOM killer is much much better
> than a locked up system. I hate to add new locations that can lockup inside
> page allocator. This is __GFP_NOFAIL and reclaim has failed.
As a matter of fact any __GFP_NOFAIL can lockup inside the allocator.
Full stop. There is no guaranteed way to make a forward progress with
the current page allocator implementation.
So we are somewhere in the middle between pre-mature and pointless
system disruption (GFP_NOFS with a lots of metadata or lowmem request)
where the OOM killer even might not help and potential lockup which is
inevitable with the current design. Dunno about you but I would rather
go with the first option. To be honest I really fail to understand your
line of argumentation. We have this
do {
cond_resched();
} (page = alloc_page(GFP_NOFS));
vs.
page = alloc_page(GFP_NOFS | __GFP_NOFAIL);
the first one doesn't invoke OOM killer while the later does. This
discrepancy just cannot make any sense... The same is true for
alloc_page(GFP_DMA) vs alloc_page(GFP_DMA|__GFP_NOFAIL)
Now we can discuss whether it is a _good_ idea to not invoke OOM killer
for those exceptions but whatever we do __GFP_NOFAIL is not a way to
give such a subtle side effect. Or do you disagree even with that?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-05 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-01 15:25 [PATCH 0/2] GFP_NOFAIL cleanups Michal Hocko
2016-12-01 15:25 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator slowpath Michal Hocko
2016-12-01 15:25 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Michal Hocko
2016-12-02 7:23 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-12-05 13:45 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-05 14:10 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-12-06 8:27 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-06 10:38 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-06 11:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-12-06 19:25 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-06 19:22 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-08 12:53 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-08 13:47 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-11 11:23 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-11 13:53 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-12 8:52 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-12 8:48 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-14 10:34 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 7:39 OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58 ` OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 17:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-12-16 22:12 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-17 11:17 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-18 16:37 ` 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=20161205141009.GJ30758@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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).