linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: willy@infradead.org, mhocko@kernel.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, riel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Check for SIGKILL inside dup_mmap() loop.
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 23:54:05 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201804032354.GHC43284.StOJFQHMLOOVFF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180403122535.GE5832@bombadil.infradead.org>

Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:19:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 03-04-18 05:14:14, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 07:34:59PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > Maybe we can make "give up by default upon SIGKILL" and let callers
> > > > explicitly say "do not give up upon SIGKILL".
> > > 
> > > I really strongly disapprove of this patch.  This GFP flag will be abused
> > > like every other GFP flag.
> > > 
> > > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > > @@ -4183,6 +4183,13 @@ bool gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > >  	if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
> > > >  		goto nopage;
> > > >  
> > > > +	/* Can give up if caller is willing to give up upon fatal signals */
> > > > +	if (fatal_signal_pending(current) &&
> > > > +	    !(gfp_mask & (__GFP_UNKILLABLE | __GFP_NOFAIL))) {
> > > > +		gfp_mask |= __GFP_NOWARN;
> > > > +		goto nopage;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > >  	/* Try direct reclaim and then allocating */
> > > 
> > > This part is superficially tempting, although without the UNKILLABLE.  ie:
> > > 
> > > +	if (fatal_signal_pending(current) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) {
> > > +		gfp_mask |= __GFP_NOWARN;
> > > +		goto nopage;
> > > +	}
> > > 
> > > It makes some sense to me to prevent tasks with a fatal signal pending
> > > from being able to trigger reclaim.  But I'm worried about what memory
> > > allocation failures it might trigger on paths that aren't accustomed to
> > > seeing failures.
> > 
> > Please be aware that we _do_ allocate in the exit path. I have a strong
> > suspicion that even while fatal signal is pending. Do we really want
> > fail those really easily.
> 
> I agree.  The allocations I'm thinking about are NFS wanting to send
> I/Os in order to fsync each file that gets closed.  We probably don't
> want those to fail.  And we definitely don't want to chase around the
> kernel adding __GFP_KILLABLE to each place that we discover needs to
> allocate on the exit path.
> 

But memory allocations for syscalls are willing to give up upon SIGKILL
regardless of OOM.

If we worry the exit/nofs/noio paths, we can use scoped masking like
memalloc_nofs_save()/memalloc_nofs_restore() for ignoring __GFP_KILLABLE.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-03 14:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-29 11:27 Tetsuo Handa
2018-03-29 21:30 ` Andrew Morton
2018-03-30 10:34   ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-04-03 12:14     ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-04-03 12:19       ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-03 12:25         ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-04-03 14:54           ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2018-04-03 12:29         ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-04-03 13:06           ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-03 11:16   ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-03 11:32     ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-04-03 11:38       ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-03 11:58   ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-04-03 12:08     ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-07 10:38   ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-04-18 21:44     ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-19  1:54       ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-04-19  2:32         ` Andrew Morton
2018-06-07 22:05           ` Andrew Morton
2018-06-08 17:05             ` Matthew Wilcox

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=201804032354.GHC43284.StOJFQHMLOOVFF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /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