linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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(&current->mm->mmap_sem) and up_write(&current->mm->mmap_sem),
> > thread2 sharing the same mm is waiting at down_read(&current->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>

  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