From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: prevent additional oom kills before memory is freed
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 10:06:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170616080620.GB30580@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1706151534170.140219@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Thu 15-06-17 15:42:23, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > I am sorry but I have really hard to make the oom reaper a reliable way
> > to stop all the potential oom lockups go away. I do not want to
> > reintroduce another potential lockup now.
>
> Please show where this "potential lockup" ever existed in a bug report or
> a testcase?
I am not aware of any specific bug report. But the main point of the
reaper is to close all _possible_ lockups due to oom victim being stuck
somewhere. exit_aio waits for all kiocbs. Can we guarantee that none
of them will depend on an allocation (directly or via a lock chain) to
proceed? Likewise ksm_exit/khugepaged_exit depend on mmap_sem for write
to proceed. Are we _guaranteed_ nobody can hold mmap_sem for read at
that time and depend on an allocation? Can we guarantee that __mmput
path will work without any depency on allocation in future?
> I have never seen __mmput() block when trying to free the
> memory it maps.
>
> > I also do not see why any
> > solution should be rushed into. I have proposed a way to go and unless
> > it is clear that this is not a way forward then I simply do not agree
> > with any partial workarounds or shortcuts.
>
> This is not a shortcut, it is a bug fix. 4.12 kills 1-4 processes
> unnecessarily as a result of setting MMF_OOM_SKIP incorrectly before the
> mm's memory can be freed. If you have not seen this issue before, which
> is why you asked if I ever observed it in practice, then you have not
> stress tested oom reaping. It is very observable and reproducible.
I am not questioning that it works for your particular test. I just
argue that it reduces the robustness of the oom reaper because it allows
oom victim to leave the reaper without MMF_OOM_SKIP set and that is the
core concept to guarantee a forward progress. So we should think about
something more appropriate.
> I do
> not agree that adding additional and obscure locking into __mmput() is the
> solution to what is plainly and obviously fixed with this simple patch.
Well, __mmput path already depends on the mmap_sem for write. So this is
not a new concept. I am not saying using mmap_sem is the only way. I
will think about that more.
> 4.12 needs to stop killing 2-5 processes on every oom condition instead of
> 1.
Believe me, I am not dismissing the issue nor the fact it _has_ to be
fixed. I just disagree we should make the oom reaper less robust.
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-16 8:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-14 23:43 David Rientjes
2017-06-15 10:39 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-15 10:53 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-15 11:01 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-15 11:32 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-15 12:03 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-15 12:13 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-15 13:01 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-15 13:22 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-15 21:43 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-15 21:37 ` David Rientjes
2017-06-15 12:20 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-15 21:26 ` David Rientjes
2017-06-15 21:41 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-15 22:03 ` David Rientjes
2017-06-15 22:12 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-15 22:42 ` David Rientjes
2017-06-16 8:06 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-06-16 0:54 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-16 4:00 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-16 8:39 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-16 10:27 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-16 11:02 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-16 14:26 ` Re: [patch] mm, oom: prevent additional oom kills before memoryis freed Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-16 14:42 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-17 13:30 ` Re: [patch] mm, oom: prevent additional oom kills before memory is freed Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-23 12:38 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-16 12:22 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-16 14:12 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-17 5:17 ` [PATCH] mm,oom_kill: Close race window of needlessly selecting new victims Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-20 22:12 ` David Rientjes
2017-06-21 2:17 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-21 20:31 ` David Rientjes
2017-06-22 0:53 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-23 12:45 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-21 13:18 ` 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=20170616080620.GB30580@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.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