Re: why do we do ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH before going out_of_memory

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>]

On Thu 28-01-16 16:12:40, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 09:11:23PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 28-01-16 20:02:04, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > It's not immediately apparent if there is a new OOM killer upstream
> > > logic that would prevent the risk of a second OOM killer invocation
> > > despite another OOM killing already happened while we were stuck in
> > > reclaim. In absence of that, the high wmark check would be still
> > > needed.
> > 
> > Well, my oom detection rework [1] strives to make the OOM detection more
> > robust and the retry logic performs the watermark check. So I think the
> > last attempt is no longer needed after that patch. I will then remove
> > it.
> 
> Hm? I don't have the same conclusion from what Andrea said.
> 
> When you have many allocations racing at the same time, they can all
> enter __alloc_pages_may_oom() in quick succession. We don't want a
> cavalcade of OOM kills when one could be enough, so we have to make
> sure that in between should_alloc_retry() giving up and acquiring the
> OOM lock nobody else already issued a kill and released enough memory.
> 
> It's a race window that gets yanked wide open when hundreds of threads
> race in __alloc_pages_may_oom(). Your patches don't fix that, AFAICS.

Only one task would be allowed to go out_of_memory and all the rest will
simply fail on oom_lock trylock and return with NULL. Or am I missing
your point?

-- 
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>