linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@kernel.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	oleg@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, hughd@google.com,
	andrea@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:29:35 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201602180029.HHG73447.QSFOHJOtLVOFFM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160217150127.GR29196@dhcp22.suse.cz>

Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Please see http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201602151958.HCJ48972.FFOFOLMHSQVJtO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp .
> > > 
> > > I have missed this one. Reading...
> > > 
> > > Hmm, so you are not referring to OOM killed task but naturally exiting
> > > thread which is racing with the OOM killer. I guess you have a point
> > > there! Could you update the changelog with the above example and repost
> > > please?
> > > 
> > Yes and I resent that patch as v2.
> > 
> > I think that the same problem exists for any task_will_free_mem()-based
> > optimizations. Can we eliminate them because these optimized paths are not
> > handled by the OOM reaper which means that we have no means other than
> > "[PATCH 5/6] mm,oom: Re-enable OOM killer using timers." ?
> 
> Well, only oom_kill_process usage of task_will_free_mem might be a
> problem because out_of_memory operates on the current task so it must be
> in the allocation path and access to memory reserves should help it to
> continue.

Allowing access to memory reserves by task_will_free_mem(current) in
out_of_memory() will help current to continue, but that does not guarantee
that current will not be later blocked at down_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem).
It is possible that one of threads sharing current thread's memory is calling
out_of_memory() from mmap() and is waiting for current to set
current->mm = NULL.

> Wrt. oom_kill_process this will be more tricky. I guess we want to
> teach oom_reaper to operate on such a task which would be a more robust
> solution than removing the check altogether.
> 

Thus, I think there is no difference between task_will_free_mem(current)
case and task_will_free_mem(p) case. We want to teach the OOM reaper to
operate whenever TIF_MEMDIE is set. But this means that we want
mm_is_reapable() check because there might be !SIGKILL && !PF_EXITING
threads when we run these optimized paths. We will need to use timer
if mm_is_reapable() == false after all.

Why don't you accept timer based workaround now, even if you have a plan
to update the OOM reaper for handling these optimized paths?

--
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:[~2016-02-17 15:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-02-17 10:28 [PATCH 0/6] preparation for merging the OOM reaper Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 10:29 ` [PATCH 1/6] mm,oom: exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 12:41   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 16:40     ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 17:33       ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 20:55         ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 10:30 ` [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 12:54   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 13:07     ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 14:00       ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 14:39         ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 15:01           ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 15:29             ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2016-02-17 16:17               ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-18 11:21                 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 10:32 ` [PATCH 3/6] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM victims Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 13:02   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 10:33 ` [PATCH 4/6] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM-unkillable Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 13:10   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 13:36     ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 13:44       ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 10:34 ` [PATCH 5/6] mm,oom: Re-enable OOM killer using timers Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 13:20   ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-09 14:00     ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-09 14:04       ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 10:36 ` [PATCH 6/6] mm,oom: wait for OOM victims when using oom_kill_allocating_task == 1 Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-17 13:32   ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-18 10:45     ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-02-18 12:20       ` 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=201602180029.HHG73447.QSFOHJOtLVOFFM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andrea@kernel.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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