From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com, oleg@redhat.com,
vdavydov@parallels.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 00:40:41 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201606170040.FGC21882.FMLHOtVSFFJOQO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160616142940.GK6836@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 16-06-16 21:54:27, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Sat 11-06-16 17:10:03, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> [...]
> > I still don't like it. current->mm == NULL in
> >
> > - if (current->mm &&
> > - (fatal_signal_pending(current) || task_will_free_mem(current))) {
> > + if (task_will_free_mem(current)) {
> >
> > is not highly unlikely. You obviously break commit d7a94e7e11badf84
> > ("oom: don't count on mm-less current process") on CONFIG_MMU=n kernels.
>
> I still fail to see why you care about that case so much. The heuristic
> was broken for other reasons before this patch. The patch fixes a class
> of issues for both mmu and nommu. I can restore the current->mm check
> for now but the more I am thinking about it the less I am sure the
> commit you are referring to is evem correct/necessary.
>
> It claims that the OOM killer would be stuck because the child would be
> sitting in the final schedule() until the parent reaps it. That is not
> true, though, because victim would be unhashed down in release_task()
> path so it is not visible by the oom killer when it is waiting for the
> parent. I have completely missed that part when reviewing the patch. Or
> am I missing something...
That explanation started from 201411292304.CGF68419.MOLHVQtSFFOOJF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
(Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:04:33 +0900) in your mailbox. I confirmed that a TIF_MEMDIE
zombie inside the final schedule() in do_exit() is waiting for parent to reap.
release_task() will be called when parent noticed that there is a zombie, but
this OOM livelock situation prevented parent looping inside page allocator waiting
for that TIF_MEMDIE zombie from noticing that there is a zombie.
>
> Anyway, would you be OK with the patch if I added the current->mm check
> and resolve its necessity in a separate patch?
Please correct task_will_free_mem() in oom_kill_process() as well.
--
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:[~2016-06-16 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-09 11:52 [PATCH 0/10 -v4] Handle oom bypass more gracefully Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 01/10] proc, oom: drop bogus task_lock and mm check Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 02/10] proc, oom: drop bogus sighand lock Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 03/10] proc, oom_adj: extract oom_score_adj setting into a helper Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 04/10] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj Michal Hocko
2016-06-15 15:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 05/10] mm, oom: skip vforked tasks from being selected Michal Hocko
2016-06-15 14:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-16 6:24 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 06/10] mm, oom: kill all tasks sharing the mm Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 13:18 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-09 14:20 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-11 8:10 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-13 11:27 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-16 12:54 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-16 14:29 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-16 15:40 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2016-06-16 15:53 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-17 11:38 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-17 12:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-17 13:12 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-17 13:29 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 08/10] mm, oom: task_will_free_mem should skip oom_reaped tasks Michal Hocko
2016-06-17 11:35 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-17 12:56 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 09/10] mm, oom_reaper: do not attempt to reap a task more than twice Michal Hocko
2016-06-15 14:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-16 6:28 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 11:52 ` [PATCH 10/10] mm, oom: hide mm which is shared with kthread or global init Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 15:15 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-09 15:41 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-16 13:15 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-16 13:36 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-15 14:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-16 6:31 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-13 11:23 ` [PATCH 0/10 -v4] Handle oom bypass more gracefully Michal Hocko
2016-06-13 14:13 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-14 20:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-14 20:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-16 6:33 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-15 15:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-06-16 6:34 ` Michal Hocko
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-06-20 12:43 [PATCH 0/10 -v5] " Michal Hocko
2016-06-20 12:43 ` [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 9:16 ` [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 11:42 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-06-03 12:12 ` 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=201606170040.FGC21882.FMLHOtVSFFJOQO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.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