From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@suse.cz
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/oom: Suppress unnecessary "sharing same memory" message.
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 02:20:23 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201505300220.GCH51071.FVOOFOLQStJMFH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150529144922.GE22728@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 29-05-15 21:40:47, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 28-05-15 06:59:32, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > I just imagined a case where p is blocked at down_read() in acct_collect() from
> > > > do_exit() when p is sharing mm with other processes, and other process is doing
> > > > blocking operation with mm->mmap_sem held for writing. Is such case impossible?
> > >
> > > It is very much possible and I have missed this case when proposing
> > > my alternative. The other process could be doing an address space
> > > operation e.g. mmap which requires an allocation.
> >
> > Are there locations that do memory allocations with mm->mmap_sem held for
> > writing?
>
> Yes, I've written that in my previous email.
>
> > Is it possible that thread1 is doing memory allocation between
> > down_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem) and up_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem),
> > thread2 sharing the same mm is waiting at down_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem),
> > and the OOM killer invoked by thread3 chooses thread2 as the OOM victim and
> > sets TIF_MEMDIE to thread2?
>
> Your usage of thread is confusing. Threads are of no concerns because
> those get killed when the group leader is killed. If you refer to
> processes then this is exactly what is handled by:
> for_each_process(p)
> if (p->mm == mm && !same_thread_group(p, victim) &&
> !(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) {
> if (p->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN)
> continue;
>
> task_lock(p); /* Protect ->comm from prctl() */
> pr_err("Kill process %d (%s) sharing same memory\n",
> task_pid_nr(p), p->comm);
> task_unlock(p);
> do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true);
> }
I refer to both "Thread-1 in process-1, thread-2 in process-1" case and
"thread-1 in process-1, thread-2 in process-2" case. Thread-3 can be in
process-1 or process-2 or neither.
When TIF_MEMDIE is set to only thread-2 waiting at down_read(), thread-1
between down_write() and up_write() cannot complete memory allocation.
The group leader is not important here because I'm talking about situations
when individual thread cannot arrive at exit_mm() after receiving SIGKILL
due to lock dependency.
> But this is a real corner case. It would have to be current to trigger
> OOM killer and the userspace would have to be able to send the signal
> at the right moment... So I am even not sure this needs fixing. Are you
> able to trigger it?
I'm not sure whether we are talking about the same problem.
I thought that we could get rid of TIF_MEMDIE like
for_each_process(p) {
if (p->mm == thread2->mm && !(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) &&
p->signal->oom_score_adj != OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN)
do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true);
}
thread2->mm->chosen_by_oom_killer = true;
if we need to set TIF_MEMDIE to all threads like
for_each_process(p) {
if (p->mm == thread2->mm && !(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) &&
p->signal->oom_score_adj != OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN) {
do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true);
for_each_thread(p, t)
mark_oom_victim(t);
}
}
in order to make sure that thread-1 can complete memory allocation.
If thread-1 and thread-2 do not share the same mm, setting TIF_MEMDIE to
all threads might not be sufficient because they can contend on e.g.
inode->i_mutex. But that's beyond scope of this suppress message patch.
--
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:[~2015-05-29 17:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-25 14:33 Tetsuo Handa
2015-05-26 17:02 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-26 21:39 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-05-27 16:45 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-27 21:59 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-05-28 18:05 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-29 12:40 ` [PATCH] mm/oom: Suppress unnecessary "sharing same memory"message Tetsuo Handa
2015-05-29 14:49 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-29 17:20 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2015-05-31 11:10 ` [PATCH] mm/oom: Suppress unnecessary "sharing same memory" message Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-01 9:58 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-01 10:16 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-01 12:02 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-01 12:15 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-01 13:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-01 13:12 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-01 15:27 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-01 15:42 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-01 9:03 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-01 10:51 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-01 11:43 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-01 12:10 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-01 12:17 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-01 12:34 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-01 13:05 ` Michal Hocko
2015-08-29 11:14 Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-01 13:34 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-02 11:27 ` [PATCH] mm/oom: Suppress unnecessary "sharing same memory"message Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-02 14:24 ` 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=201505300220.GCH51071.FVOOFOLQStJMFH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@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