linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@kernel.org, surenb@google.com
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
	hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com, minchan@kernel.org,
	mgorman@techsingularity.net, ying.huang@intel.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	timmurray@google.com, tkjos@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: terminate shrink_slab loop if signal is pending
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:37:59 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201712102037.IEB12405.OLFOMtSOQFVHFJ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171210101311.GA20234@dhcp22.suse.cz>

Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > I agree that making waits/loops killable is generally good. But be sure to be
> > > prepared for the worst case. For example, start __GFP_KILLABLE from "best effort"
> > > basis (i.e. no guarantee that the allocating thread will leave the page allocator
> > > slowpath immediately) and check for fatal_signal_pending() only if
> > > __GFP_KILLABLE is set. That is,
> > >
> > > +               /*
> > > +                * We are about to die and free our memory.
> > > +                * Stop shrinking which might delay signal handling.
> > > +                */
> > > +               if (unlikely((gfp_mask & __GFP_KILLABLE) && fatal_signal_pending(current)))
> > > +                       break;
> > >
> > > at shrink_slab() etc. and
> > >
> > > +               if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_KILLABLE) && fatal_signal_pending(current))
> > > +                       goto nopage;
> > >
> > > at __alloc_pages_slowpath().
> > 
> > I was thinking about something similar and will experiment to see if
> > this solves the problem and if it has any side effects. Anyone sees
> > any obvious problems with this approach?
> 
> Tetsuo has been proposing this flag in the past and I've had objections
> why this is not a great idea. I do not have any link handy but the core
> objection was that the semantic would be too fuzzy. All the allocations
> in the same context would have to be killable for this flag to have any
> effect. Spreading it all over the kernel is simply not feasible.
> 

Refusing __GFP_KILLABLE based on "All the allocations in the same context
would have to be killable" does not make sense. Outside of MM, we update
code to use _killable version step by step based on best effort basis.
People don't call efforts to change like

  func1() {
    // As of this point it is easy to bail out.
    if (mutex_lock_killable(&lock1) == 0) {
      func2();
      mutex_unlock(&lock1);
    }
  }

  func2() {
    mutex_lock(&lock2);
    // Do something which is not possible to bail out for now.
    mutex_unlock(&lock2);
  }

pointless.

If you insist on "All the allocations in the same context would
have to be killable", then we will offload all activities to some
kernel thread.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-10 11:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-08  1:23 [PATCH v2] mm: terminate shrink_slab loop if signal is pending Suren Baghdasaryan
2017-12-08  8:22 ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-08 11:36   ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-12-08 11:48     ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-08 14:03       ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-12-08 18:06         ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2017-12-09  8:08           ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-12-10 10:17             ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-11 21:05             ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2017-12-10 10:13           ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-10 11:37             ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2017-12-11 21:12             ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2017-12-08 21:02 ` David Rientjes
2017-12-09  3:16   ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2017-12-09 12:44   ` 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=201712102037.IEB12405.OLFOMtSOQFVHFJ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=timmurray@google.com \
    --cc=tkjos@google.com \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.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).