From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Remove wake_oom_reaper().
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 10:21:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180806082139.GD19540@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1533302350-3398-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On Fri 03-08-18 22:19:10, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Currently, wake_oom_reaper() is checking whether an OOM victim thread is
> already chained to the OOM victim list. But chaining one thread from each
> OOM victim process is sufficient.
>
> Since mark_oom_victim() sets signal->oom_mm for one thread from each OOM
> victim process, we can chain that OOM victim thread there. Since oom_lock
> is held during __oom_kill_process(), by replacing oom_reaper_lock with
> oom_lock, it becomes safe to use mark_oom_victim() even if MMF_OOM_SKIP is
> later set due to is_global_init() case.
The changelog doesn't explain _why_ would we want to merge this. What is
the actual advantage of replacing a dedicated lock by a more scoped one
and make additional dependency here?
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---
> mm/oom_kill.c | 41 ++++++++++-------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 0e10b86..dad0409 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -486,7 +486,6 @@ bool process_shares_mm(struct task_struct *p, struct mm_struct *mm)
> static struct task_struct *oom_reaper_th;
> static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(oom_reaper_wait);
> static struct task_struct *oom_reaper_list;
> -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(oom_reaper_lock);
>
> bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> @@ -607,7 +606,7 @@ static void oom_reap_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
> */
> set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags);
>
> - /* Drop a reference taken by wake_oom_reaper */
> + /* Drop a reference taken by mark_oom_victim(). */
> put_task_struct(tsk);
> }
>
> @@ -617,12 +616,12 @@ static int oom_reaper(void *unused)
> struct task_struct *tsk = NULL;
>
> wait_event_freezable(oom_reaper_wait, oom_reaper_list != NULL);
> - spin_lock(&oom_reaper_lock);
> + mutex_lock(&oom_lock);
> if (oom_reaper_list != NULL) {
> tsk = oom_reaper_list;
> oom_reaper_list = tsk->oom_reaper_list;
> }
> - spin_unlock(&oom_reaper_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&oom_lock);
>
> if (tsk)
> oom_reap_task(tsk);
> @@ -631,32 +630,12 @@ static int oom_reaper(void *unused)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static void wake_oom_reaper(struct task_struct *tsk)
> -{
> - /* tsk is already queued? */
> - if (tsk == oom_reaper_list || tsk->oom_reaper_list)
> - return;
> -
> - get_task_struct(tsk);
> -
> - spin_lock(&oom_reaper_lock);
> - tsk->oom_reaper_list = oom_reaper_list;
> - oom_reaper_list = tsk;
> - spin_unlock(&oom_reaper_lock);
> - trace_wake_reaper(tsk->pid);
> - wake_up(&oom_reaper_wait);
> -}
> -
> static int __init oom_init(void)
> {
> oom_reaper_th = kthread_run(oom_reaper, NULL, "oom_reaper");
> return 0;
> }
> subsys_initcall(oom_init)
> -#else
> -static inline void wake_oom_reaper(struct task_struct *tsk)
> -{
> -}
> #endif /* CONFIG_MMU */
>
> /**
> @@ -682,6 +661,13 @@ static void mark_oom_victim(struct task_struct *tsk)
> if (!cmpxchg(&tsk->signal->oom_mm, NULL, mm)) {
> mmgrab(tsk->signal->oom_mm);
> set_bit(MMF_OOM_VICTIM, &mm->flags);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
> + get_task_struct(tsk);
> + tsk->oom_reaper_list = oom_reaper_list;
> + oom_reaper_list = tsk;
> + trace_wake_reaper(tsk->pid);
> + wake_up(&oom_reaper_wait);
> +#endif
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -833,7 +819,6 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim)
> {
> struct task_struct *p;
> struct mm_struct *mm;
> - bool can_oom_reap = true;
>
> p = find_lock_task_mm(victim);
> if (!p) {
> @@ -883,7 +868,6 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim)
> if (same_thread_group(p, victim))
> continue;
> if (is_global_init(p)) {
> - can_oom_reap = false;
> set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags);
> pr_info("oom killer %d (%s) has mm pinned by %d (%s)\n",
> task_pid_nr(victim), victim->comm,
> @@ -900,9 +884,6 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim)
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> - if (can_oom_reap)
> - wake_oom_reaper(victim);
> -
> mmdrop(mm);
> put_task_struct(victim);
> }
> @@ -941,7 +922,6 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message)
> task_lock(p);
> if (task_will_free_mem(p)) {
> mark_oom_victim(p);
> - wake_oom_reaper(p);
> task_unlock(p);
> put_task_struct(p);
> return;
> @@ -1071,7 +1051,6 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> */
> if (task_will_free_mem(current)) {
> mark_oom_victim(current);
> - wake_oom_reaper(current);
> return true;
> }
>
> --
> 1.8.3.1
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-06 8:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-03 13:19 Tetsuo Handa
2018-08-06 8:21 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
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=20180806082139.GD19540@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.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