From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@suse.com
Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, yuwang668899@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
chenggang.qcg@alibaba-inc.com, yuwang.yuwang@alibaba-inc.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc: softlockup on warn_alloc on
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:31:31 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201709181531.HGI09326.OFQMFOtVHFJSLO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170918060524.sut26yl65j2cf3jk@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > The synchronization has worked this way for a long time (trylock
> > > failure assuming progress, but the order/NOFS/zone bailouts from
> > > actually OOM-killing inside the locked section). We should really fix
> > > *that* rather than serializing warn_alloc().
> > >
> > > For GFP_NOFS, it seems to go back to 9879de7373fc ("mm: page_alloc:
> > > embed OOM killing naturally into allocation slowpath"). Before that we
> > > didn't use to call __alloc_pages_may_oom() for NOFS allocations. So I
> > > still wonder why this only now appears to be causing problems.
> > >
> > > In any case, converting that trylock to a sleeping lock in this case
> > > makes sense to me. Nobody is blocking under this lock (except that one
> > > schedule_timeout_killable(1) after dispatching a victim) and it's not
> > > obvious to me why we'd need that level of concurrency under OOM.
> >
> > You can try http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1500202791-5427-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
> > and http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1503577106-9196-2-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp together.
> > Then, we can remove mutex_lock(&oom_lock) serialization from __oom_reap_task_mm()
> > which still exists because Andrea's patch was accepted instead of Michal's patch.
>
> We can safely drop the oom_lock from __oom_reap_task_mm now. Andrea
> didn't want to do it in his patch because that is a separate thing
> logically. But nothing should prefent the removal now that AFAICS.
No! The oom_lock in __oom_reap_task_mm() is still required due to lack of
really last second allocation attempt. If we do really last second
allocation attempt, we can remove the oom_lock from __oom_reap_task_mm().
Enter __alloc_pages_may_oom() Enter __oom_reap_task_mm()
Take oom_lock
Try last get_page_from_freelist()
No "take oom_lock" here
Reap memory
Set MMF_OOM_SKIP
No "release oom_lock" here
Leave __oom_reap_task_mm()
Enter out_of_memory()
Enter select_bad_process()
Enter oom_evaluate_task()
Check if MMF_OOM_SKIP is already set
Leave oom_evaluate_task()
Leave select_bad_process()
No "really last get_page_from_freelist()" here
Kill the next victim needlessly
Leave out_of_memory()
Release oom_lock
Leave __alloc_pages_may_oom()
--
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:[~2017-09-18 6:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-15 9:58 wang Yu
2017-09-15 10:39 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-15 11:38 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-09-15 12:00 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-15 12:09 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-09-15 12:14 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-15 14:12 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-09-15 14:23 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-24 1:56 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-09-15 14:37 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-09-15 15:23 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-09-15 18:44 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-09-16 0:25 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-09-18 6:05 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-18 6:31 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2017-09-18 6:43 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-16 4:12 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-11 11:14 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-18 10:54 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-09-18 6:03 ` 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=201709181531.HGI09326.OFQMFOtVHFJSLO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chenggang.qcg@alibaba-inc.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=yuwang.yuwang@alibaba-inc.com \
--cc=yuwang668899@gmail.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