From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,page_alloc: Don't call __node_reclaim() with oom_lock held.
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 13:47:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170825134714.844d9fb169e5b1883c3dd6eb@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1503577106-9196-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 21:18:25 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
> We are doing last second memory allocation attempt before calling
> out_of_memory(). But since slab shrinker functions might indirectly
> wait for other thread's __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM && !__GFP_NORETRY memory
> allocations via sleeping locks, calling slab shrinker functions from
> node_reclaim() from get_page_from_freelist() with oom_lock held has
> possibility of deadlock. Therefore, make sure that last second memory
> allocation attempt does not call slab shrinker functions.
I wonder if there's any way we could gert lockdep to detect this sort
of thing.
Has the deadlock been observed in testing? Do we think this fix
should be backported into -stable?
--
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:[~2017-08-25 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1503577106-9196-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
2017-08-24 12:18 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm,oom: Try last second allocation after selecting an OOM victim Tetsuo Handa
2017-08-24 13:18 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-24 14:40 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-08-25 8:00 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-09 0:55 ` Tetsuo Handa
[not found] ` <201710172204.AGG30740.tVHJFFOQLMSFOO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
2017-10-20 12:40 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-20 14:18 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-23 11:30 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-24 11:24 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-24 11:41 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-25 10:48 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-25 11:09 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-25 12:15 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-25 12:41 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-25 14:58 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-25 15:05 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-25 15:34 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-08-24 13:03 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm,page_alloc: Don't call __node_reclaim() with oom_lock held Michal Hocko
2017-08-25 20:47 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2017-08-26 1:28 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-08-27 4:17 ` 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=20170825134714.844d9fb169e5b1883c3dd6eb@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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