From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs access to memory reserves
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:37:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131212123736.GE2630@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131212121140.GD2630@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Thu 12-12-13 13:11:40, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 12-12-13 11:31:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > The semantic would be as simple as "notification is sent only when
> > an action is due". It will be still racy as nothing prevents a task
> > which is not under OOM to exit and release some memory but there is no
> > sensible way to address that. On the other hand such a semantic would be
> > sensible for oom_control listeners because they will know that an action
> > has to be or will be taken (the line was drawn).
> >
> > Can we agree on this, Johannes? Or you see the line drawn when
> > mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize has been reached already no matter whether
> > the action is to be done or not?
>
> Something like the following:
I forgot to mention that this patch assumes "memcg: Do not hang on OOM
when killed by userspace OOM"
> From 5d9c01e2814a7ade49db7945ad3890f4f138855e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:50:17 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] memcg: notify userspace about OOM when and action is due
>
> Userspace is currently notified about OOM condition after fails
> to reclaim any memory after MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES rounds.
> This usually means that the memcg is really in troubles and an
> OOM action (either done by userspace or kernel) has to be taken.
> The kernel OOM killer however bails out and doesn't kill anything
> if it sees an already dying/exiting task in a good hope a memory
> will be released and OOM situation will be resolved.
>
> Therefore it makes sense to notify userspace only after really all
> measures have been taken and an userspace action is required or
> the kernel kills a task.
>
> This patch also removes fatal_signal_pending and PF_EXITING check from
> mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize because __mem_cgroup_try_charge already
> checks for both and bypasses charge so we cannot end up in the oom path.
Hmm, I have just noticed that oom_scan_process_thread aborts scanning
only if it sees PF_EXITING or TIF_MEMDIE. Why the same is not done for
fatal_signal_pending tasks as well? Following the same logic as for the
current we should do that no?
The different sets of checks is so confusing :/
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 17 ++++-------------
> mm/oom_kill.c | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 98900c070045..af7148c77bac 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2235,16 +2235,6 @@ bool mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize(bool handle)
> if (!handle)
> goto cleanup;
>
> - /*
> - * If current has a pending SIGKILL or is exiting, then automatically
> - * select it. The goal is to allow it to allocate so that it may
> - * quickly exit and free its memory.
> - */
> - if (fatal_signal_pending(current) || current->flags & PF_EXITING) {
> - set_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE);
> - goto cleanup;
> - }
> -
> owait.memcg = memcg;
> owait.wait.flags = 0;
> owait.wait.func = memcg_oom_wake_function;
> @@ -2256,15 +2246,16 @@ bool mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize(bool handle)
>
> locked = mem_cgroup_oom_trylock(memcg);
>
> - if (locked)
> - mem_cgroup_oom_notify(memcg);
> -
> if (locked && !memcg->oom_kill_disable) {
> mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(memcg);
> finish_wait(&memcg_oom_waitq, &owait.wait);
> + /* calls mem_cgroup_oom_notify if there is a task to kill */
> mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(memcg, current->memcg_oom.gfp_mask,
> current->memcg_oom.order);
> } else {
> + if (locked && memcg->oom_kill_disable)
> + mem_cgroup_oom_notify(memcg);
> +
> schedule();
> mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(memcg);
> finish_wait(&memcg_oom_waitq, &owait.wait);
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 1e4a600a6163..47c9de8da36d 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -394,6 +394,8 @@ static void dump_header(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> dump_tasks(memcg, nodemask);
> }
>
> +extern void mem_cgroup_oom_notify(struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
> +
> #define K(x) ((x) << (PAGE_SHIFT-10))
> /*
> * Must be called while holding a reference to p, which will be released upon
> @@ -470,6 +472,9 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> victim = p;
> }
>
> + if (memcg)
> + mem_cgroup_oom_notify(memcg);
> +
> /* mm cannot safely be dereferenced after task_unlock(victim) */
> mm = victim->mm;
> pr_err("Killed process %d (%s) total-vm:%lukB, anon-rss:%lukB, file-rss:%lukB\n",
> --
> 1.8.4.4
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-12 12:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-31 1:39 [patch] mm, memcg: add memory.oom_control notification for system oom David Rientjes
2013-10-31 5:49 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-13 22:19 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-13 23:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-14 0:56 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-14 3:25 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-14 22:57 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-14 23:26 ` [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs access to memory reserves David Rientjes
2013-11-14 23:26 ` [patch 2/2] mm, memcg: add memory.oom_control notification for system oom David Rientjes
2013-11-18 18:52 ` Michal Hocko
2013-11-19 1:25 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-19 12:41 ` Michal Hocko
2013-11-18 12:52 ` [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs access to memory reserves Michal Hocko
2013-11-18 12:55 ` Michal Hocko
2013-11-19 1:19 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-18 15:41 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-18 16:51 ` Michal Hocko
2013-11-19 1:22 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-22 16:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-27 0:53 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-27 16:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-27 21:51 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-27 23:19 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-28 0:22 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-28 2:28 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-28 2:52 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-28 3:16 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-12-02 20:02 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-02 21:25 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-12-03 12:04 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-03 20:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-12-03 21:00 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-03 21:23 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-12-03 23:50 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-04 3:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-12-04 11:13 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-05 0:23 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-09 12:48 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-09 21:46 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-09 22:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-12-09 23:05 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-10 0:34 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-10 10:38 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-11 1:03 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-11 9:55 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-11 22:40 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-12 10:31 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-12 10:50 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-12 12:11 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-12 12:37 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2013-12-13 23:55 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-17 16:23 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-17 20:50 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-18 20:04 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-19 6:09 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-19 14:41 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-08 0:25 ` Andrew Morton
2014-01-08 10:33 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-09 14:30 ` [PATCH] memcg: Do not hang on OOM when killed by userspace OOM " Michal Hocko
2014-01-09 21:40 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-10 8:23 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-10 21:33 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-15 14:26 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-15 21:19 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-16 10:12 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-21 6:13 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-21 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-09 21:34 ` [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs " David Rientjes
2014-01-09 22:47 ` Andrew Morton
2014-01-10 0:01 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-10 0:12 ` Andrew Morton
2014-01-10 0:23 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-10 0:35 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-10 22:14 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-12 22:10 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-15 14:34 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-15 21:23 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-16 9:32 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-21 5:58 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-21 6:04 ` Greg Kroah-Hartmann
2014-01-21 6:08 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-10 8:30 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-10 21:38 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-10 22:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-12 22:14 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-18 15:54 ` [patch] mm, memcg: add memory.oom_control notification for system oom Johannes Weiner
2013-11-18 23:15 ` One Thousand Gnomes
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=20131212123736.GE2630@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--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