linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Masoud Sharbiani <msharbiani@apple.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Possible mem cgroup bug in kernels between 4.18.0 and 5.3-rc1.
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 23:00:12 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0b817204-29f4-adfb-9b78-4fec5fa8f680@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190805114434.GK7597@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On 2019/08/05 20:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> Allowing forced charge due to being unable to invoke memcg OOM killer
>> will lead to global OOM situation, and just returning -ENOMEM will not
>> solve memcg OOM situation.
> 
> Returning -ENOMEM would effectivelly lead to triggering the oom killer
> from the page fault bail out path. So effectively get us back to before
> 29ef680ae7c21110. But it is true that this is riskier from the
> observability POV when a) the OOM path wouldn't point to the culprit and
> b) it would leak ENOMEM from g-u-p path.
> 

Excuse me? But according to my experiment, below code showed flood of
"Returning -ENOMEM" message instead of invoking the OOM killer.
I didn't find it gets us back to before 29ef680ae7c21110...

--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1884,6 +1884,8 @@ static enum oom_status mem_cgroup_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t mask, int
        mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(memcg);
        if (mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(memcg, mask, order))
                ret = OOM_SUCCESS;
+       else if (!(mask & __GFP_FS))
+               ret = OOM_SKIPPED;
        else
                ret = OOM_FAILED;

@@ -2457,8 +2459,10 @@ static int try_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
                goto nomem;
        }
 nomem:
-       if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
+       if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) {
+               printk("Returning -ENOMEM\n");
                return -ENOMEM;
+       }
 force:
        /*
         * The allocation either can't fail or will lead to more memory
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -1071,7 +1071,7 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
         * ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM to get here.
         */
        if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
-               return true;
+               return !is_memcg_oom(oc);

        /*
         * Check if there were limitations on the allocation (only relevant for


  reply	other threads:[~2019-08-05 14:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-01 18:04 Masoud Sharbiani
2019-08-01 18:19 ` Greg KH
2019-08-01 22:26   ` Masoud Sharbiani
2019-08-02  1:08   ` Masoud Sharbiani
2019-08-02  8:08     ` Hillf Danton
2019-08-02  8:18     ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-02  7:40 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-02 14:18   ` Masoud Sharbiani
2019-08-02 14:41     ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-02 18:00       ` Masoud Sharbiani
2019-08-02 19:14         ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-02 23:28           ` Masoud Sharbiani
2019-08-03  2:36             ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-08-03 15:51               ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-08-03 17:41                 ` Masoud Sharbiani
2019-08-03 18:24                   ` Masoud Sharbiani
2019-08-05  8:42                 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-05 11:36                   ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-08-05 11:44                     ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-05 14:00                       ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2019-08-05 14:26                         ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-06 10:26                           ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-08-06 10:50                             ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-06 12:48                               ` [PATCH v3] memcg, oom: don't require __GFP_FS when invoking memcg OOM killer Tetsuo Handa
2019-08-05  8:18             ` Possible mem cgroup bug in kernels between 4.18.0 and 5.3-rc1 Michal Hocko
2019-08-02 12:10 Hillf Danton
2019-08-02 13:40 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-03  5:45 Hillf Danton

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=0b817204-29f4-adfb-9b78-4fec5fa8f680@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=msharbiani@apple.com \
    --cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.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