linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, aarcange@redhat.com, rientjes@google.com,
	mjaggi@caviumnetworks.com, oleg@redhat.com,
	vdavydov.dev@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: task_will_free_mem() should ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP unless __GFP_NOFAIL.
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:44:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171211114441.GB4779@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201712112015.BGH95360.HtMSJOOQVFLFOF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>

On Mon 11-12-17 20:15:35, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >From 6f45864753ce820adede5b318b9cb341ffd3e740 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:52:07 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] mm, oom: task_will_free_mem() should ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP
>  unless __GFP_NOFAIL.
> 
> Manish Jaggi noticed that running LTP oom01/oom02 tests with high core
> count causes random kernel panics when an OOM victim which consumed memory
> in a way the OOM reaper does not help was selected by the OOM killer [1].

How does this have anything to do with any GFP_NOFAIL allocations?

> Since commit 696453e66630ad45 ("mm, oom: task_will_free_mem should skip
> oom_reaped tasks") changed task_will_free_mem(current) in out_of_memory()
> to return false as soon as MMF_OOM_SKIP is set, many threads sharing the
> victim's mm were not able to try allocation from memory reserves after the
> OOM reaper gave up reclaiming memory.
> 
> Since __alloc_pages_slowpath() will bail out after ALLOC_OOM allocation
> failed (unless __GFP_NOFAIL is specified), this patch forces OOM victims
> to try ALLOC_OOM allocation and then bail out rather than selecting next
> OOM victim (unless __GFP_NOFAIL is specified which is necessary for
> avoiding potential OOM lockup).

Nack again. The changelog doesn't make any sense at all. And I am really
not convinced this actually fixes any real problem. Please do not bother
even sending patches like that.

> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/e6c83a26-1d59-4afd-55cf-04e58bdde188@caviumnetworks.com
> 
> Fixes: 696453e66630ad45 ("mm, oom: task_will_free_mem should skip oom_reaped tasks")
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Reported-by: Manish Jaggi <mjaggi@caviumnetworks.com>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> ---
>  mm/oom_kill.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 7f54d9f..f71fe4c 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ static inline bool __task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
>   * Caller has to make sure that task->mm is stable (hold task_lock or
>   * it operates on the current).
>   */
> -static bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
> +static bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  {
>  	struct mm_struct *mm = task->mm;
>  	struct task_struct *p;
> @@ -802,10 +802,10 @@ static bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
>  		return false;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * This task has already been drained by the oom reaper so there are
> -	 * only small chances it will free some more
> +	 * Select next OOM victim only if existing OOM victims can not satisfy
> +	 * __GFP_NOFAIL allocation even after the OOM reaper reclaimed memory.
>  	 */
> -	if (test_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags))
> +	if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) && test_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags))
>  		return false;
>  
>  	if (atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 1)
> @@ -938,7 +938,7 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message)
>  	 * so it can die quickly
>  	 */
>  	task_lock(p);
> -	if (task_will_free_mem(p)) {
> +	if (task_will_free_mem(p, oc->gfp_mask)) {
>  		mark_oom_victim(p);
>  		wake_oom_reaper(p);
>  		task_unlock(p);
> @@ -1092,7 +1092,7 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
>  	 * select it.  The goal is to allow it to allocate so that it may
>  	 * quickly exit and free its memory.
>  	 */
> -	if (task_will_free_mem(current)) {
> +	if (task_will_free_mem(current, oc->gfp_mask)) {
>  		mark_oom_victim(current);
>  		wake_oom_reaper(current);
>  		return true;
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1

-- 
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-11 11:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-07 11:42 [PATCH] mm,oom: use ALLOC_OOM for OOM victim's last second allocation Tetsuo Handa
2017-12-07 11:51 ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-07 11:59   ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-12-07 12:22     ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-08 10:58       ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-12-11 11:15         ` [PATCH] mm, oom: task_will_free_mem() should ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP unless __GFP_NOFAIL Tetsuo Handa
2017-12-11 11:44           ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-12-11 11:42         ` [PATCH] mm,oom: use ALLOC_OOM for OOM victim's last second allocation Michal Hocko
2017-12-12  8:09           ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-12-12 10:07             ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-11 11:57 ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-13 11:06   ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-12-19 14:36     ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-12-19 14:55       ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-21 15:34         ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-12-21 16:42           ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-23 14:41             ` 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=20171211114441.GB4779@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mjaggi@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=vdavydov.dev@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