From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mempolicy: don't select exited threads as OOM victims
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 15:17:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190701131736.GX6376@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15099126-5d0f-51eb-7134-46c5c2db3bf0@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
On Mon 01-07-19 22:04:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/07/01 20:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sat 29-06-19 20:24:34, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> Since mpol_put_task_policy() in do_exit() sets mempolicy = NULL,
> >> mempolicy_nodemask_intersects() considers exited threads (e.g. a process
> >> with dying leader and live threads) as eligible. But it is possible that
> >> all of live threads are still ineligible.
> >>
> >> Since has_intersects_mems_allowed() returns true as soon as one of threads
> >> is considered eligible, mempolicy_nodemask_intersects() needs to consider
> >> exited threads as ineligible. Since exit_mm() in do_exit() sets mm = NULL
> >> before mpol_put_task_policy() sets mempolicy = NULL, we can exclude exited
> >> threads by checking whether mm is NULL.
> >
> > Ok, this makes sense. For this change
> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> >
>
> But I realized that this patch was too optimistic. We need to wait for mm-less
> threads until MMF_OOM_SKIP is set if the process was already an OOM victim.
If the process is an oom victim then _all_ threads are so as well
because that is the address space property. And we already do check that
before reaching oom_badness IIRC. So what is the actual problem you are
trying to solve here?
> If
> we fail to allow the process to reach MMF_OOM_SKIP test, the process will be
> ignored by the OOM killer as soon as all threads pass mm = NULL at exit_mm(), for
> has_intersects_mems_allowed() returns false unless MPOL_{BIND,INTERLEAVE} is used.
>
> Well, the problem is that exited threads prematurely set mempolicy = NULL.
> Since bitmap memory for cpuset_mems_allowed_intersects() path is freed when
> __put_task_struct() is called, mempolicy memory for mempolicy_nodemask_intersects()
> path should be freed as well when __put_task_struct() is called?
I am sorry but I have hard time understanding what is the actual user
visible problem here.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-01 13:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-29 11:24 Tetsuo Handa
2019-07-01 11:17 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-01 13:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-07-01 13:17 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2019-07-01 13:38 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-07-01 13:48 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-01 13:56 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-07-01 14:04 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-01 14:16 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-02 13:19 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-07-02 13:51 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-02 21:26 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-07-03 7:06 ` 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=20190701131736.GX6376@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=shakeelb@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