From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:26:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170725152639.GP29716@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170724072332.31903-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:23:32AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>
> David has noticed that the oom killer might kill additional tasks while
> the exiting oom victim hasn't terminated yet because the oom_reaper marks
> the curent victim MMF_OOM_SKIP too early when mm->mm_users dropped down
> to 0. The race is as follows
>
> oom_reap_task do_exit
> exit_mm
> __oom_reap_task_mm
> mmput
> __mmput
> mmget_not_zero # fails
> exit_mmap # frees memory
> set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP)
>
> The victim is still visible to the OOM killer until it is unhashed.
I think this is a very minor problem, in the worst case you get a
false positive oom kill, and it requires a race condition for it to
happen. I wouldn't add mmap_sem in exit_mmap just for this considering
the mmget_not_zero is already enough to leave exit_mmap alone.
Could you first clarify these points then I'll understand better what
the above is about:
1) if exit_mmap runs for a long time with terabytes of RAM with
mmap_sem held for writing like your patch does, wouldn't then
oom_reap_task_mm fail the same way after a few tries on
down_read_trylock? Despite your patch got applied? Isn't that
simply moving the failure that leads to set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP) from
mmget_not_zero to down_read_trylock?
2) why isn't __oom_reap_task_mm returning different retvals in case
mmget_not_zero fails? What is the point to schedule_timeout
and retry MAX_OOM_REAP_RETRIES times if mmget_not_zero caused it to
return null as it can't do anything about such task anymore? Why
are we scheduling those RETRIES times if mm_users is 0?
3) if exit_mmap is freeing lots of memory already, why should there be
another OOM immediately? I thought oom reaper only was needed when
the task on the right column couldn't reach the final mmput to set
mm_users to 0. Why exactly is a problem that MMF_OOM_SKIP gets set
on the mm, if exit_mmap is already guaranteed to be running? Why
isn't the oom reaper happy to just stop in such case and wait it to
complete? exit_mmap doesn't even take the mmap_sem and it's running
in R state, how would it block in a way that requires the OOM
reaper to free memory from another process to complete?
4) how is it safe to overwrite a VM_FAULT_RETRY that returns without
mmap_sem and then the arch code will release the mmap_sem despite
it was already released by handle_mm_fault? Anonymous memory faults
aren't common to return VM_FAULT_RETRY but an userfault
can. Shouldn't there be a block that prevents overwriting if
VM_FAULT_RETRY is set below? (not only VM_FAULT_ERROR)
if (unlikely((current->flags & PF_KTHREAD) && !(ret & VM_FAULT_ERROR)
&& test_bit(MMF_UNSTABLE, &vma->vm_mm->flags)))
ret = VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
Thanks,
Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-25 15:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-24 7:23 [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap Michal Hocko
2017-07-24 14:00 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-07-24 14:15 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-24 14:51 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-07-24 16:11 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-25 14:17 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-07-25 14:26 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-25 15:07 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-07-25 15:15 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-25 14:26 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-25 15:17 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-07-25 15:23 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-25 15:31 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-07-25 16:04 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-25 19:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2017-07-26 5:45 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-26 16:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2017-07-26 16:43 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2017-07-27 6:50 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-27 14:55 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2017-07-28 6:23 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-28 1:58 ` [PATCH 1/1] mm: oom: let oom_reap_task and exit_mmap to run kbuild test robot
2017-08-15 0:20 ` [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap David Rientjes
2017-07-24 15:27 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-24 16:42 ` kbuild test robot
2017-07-24 18:12 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-25 15:26 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
2017-07-25 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-25 18:26 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2017-07-26 5:45 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-26 16:39 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2017-07-27 6:32 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-27 8:29 Manish Jaggi
2017-07-27 9:24 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-10 8:16 Michal Hocko
2017-08-10 18:05 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2017-08-10 18:51 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-10 20:36 ` 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=20170725152639.GP29716@redhat.com \
--to=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--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).