From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@kernel.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: linux-4.4-rc1: TIF_MEMDIE without SIGKILL pending?
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:06:02 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201511232006.EDD81713.JMSFOOtQFOHLFV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151123083024.GA21436@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 22-11-15 21:13:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > I was updating kmallocwd in preparation for testing "[RFC 0/3] OOM detection
> > rework v2" patchset. I noticed an unexpected result with linux.git as of
> > 3ad5d7e06a96 .
> >
> > The problem is that an OOM victim arrives at do_exit() with TIF_MEMDIE flag
> > set but without pending SIGKILL. Is this correct behavior?
>
> Have a look at out_of_memory where we do:
> /*
> * 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.
> *
> * But don't select if current has already released its mm and cleared
> * TIF_MEMDIE flag at exit_mm(), otherwise an OOM livelock may occur.
> */
> if (current->mm &&
> (fatal_signal_pending(current) || task_will_free_mem(current))) {
> mark_oom_victim(current);
> return true;
> }
>
> So if the current was exiting already we are not killing it, we just give it
> access to memory reserves to expedite the exit. We do the same thing for the
> memcg case.
The result is the same even if I do
- BUG_ON(test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) && !fatal_signal_pending(current));
+ BUG_ON(test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) && !fatal_signal_pending(current) && !task_will_free_mem(current));
. I think that task_will_free_mem() is always false because this BUG_ON()
is located before "exit_signals(tsk); /* sets PF_EXITING */" line.
>
> Why would that be an issue in the first place?
The real problem I care is TIF_MEMDIE livelock.
MemAlloc: oom-tester4(11040) uninterruptible dying victim
MemAlloc: oom-tester4(11045) gfp=0x242014a order=0 delay=10000 dying
I'm not talking about TIF_MEMDIE livelock in this thread. I'm just worrying
that below output (which is caused by an OOM victim arriving at do_exit()
with TIF_MEMDIE flag set but without pending SIGKILL) is a foretaste of
unnoticed problem.
MemAlloc: oom-tester4(11520) uninterruptible victim
--
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:[~2015-11-23 11:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-22 12:13 Tetsuo Handa
2015-11-23 8:30 ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-23 11:06 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2015-11-23 11:33 ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-23 12:38 ` 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=201511232006.EDD81713.JMSFOOtQFOHLFV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.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