linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: prevent soft lockup on memcg oom for UP systems
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 12:18:51 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <202003170318.02H3IpSx047471@www262.sakura.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2003161648370.47327@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2020, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > If current thread is an OOM victim, schedule_timeout_killable(1) will give other
> > threads (including the OOM reaper kernel thread) CPU time to run, by leaving
> > try_charge() path due to should_force_charge() == true and reaching do_exit() path
> > instead of returning to userspace code doing "for (;;);".
> > 
> > Unless the problem is that current thread cannot reach should_force_charge() check,
> > schedule_timeout_killable(1) should work.
> > 
> 
> No need to yield if current is the oom victim, allowing the oom reaper to 
> run when it may not actually be able to free memory is not required.  It 
> increases the likelihood that some other process schedules and is unable 
> to yield back due to the memcg oom condition such that the victim doesn't 
> get a chance to run again.
> 
> This happens because the victim is allowed to overcharge but other 
> processes attached to an oom memcg hierarchy simply fail the charge.  We 
> are then reliant on all memory chargers in the kernel to yield if their 
> charges fail due to oom.  It's the only way to allow the victim to 
> eventually run.
> 
> So the only change that I would make to your patch is to do this in 
> mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() instead:
> 
> 	if (!fatal_signal_pending(current))
> 		schedule_timeout_killable(1);
> 
> So we don't have this reliance on all other memory chargers to yield when 
> their charge fails and there is no delay for victims themselves.

I see. You want below functions for environments where current thread can
fail to resume execution for long if current thread once reschedules (e.g.
UP kernel, many threads contended on one CPU).

/*
 * Give other threads CPU time, unless current thread was already killed.
 * Used when we prefer killed threads to continue execution (in a hope that
 * killed threads terminate quickly) over giving other threads CPU time.
 */
signed long __sched schedule_timeout_killable_expedited(signed long timeout)
{
	if (unlikely(fatal_signal_pending(current)))
		return timeout;
	return schedule_timeout_killable(timeout);
}

/*
 * Latency reduction via explicit rescheduling in places that are safe,
 * but becomes no-op if current thread was already killed. Used when we
 * prefer killed threads to continue execution (in a hope that killed
 * threads terminate quickly) over giving other threads CPU time.
 */
int cond_resched_expedited(void)
{
	if (unlikely(fatal_signal_pending(current)))
		return 0;
	return cond_resched();
}

> 
>  [ I'll still propose my change that adds cond_resched() to 
>    shrink_node_memcgs() because we can see need_resched set for a 
>    prolonged period of time without scheduling. ]

As long as there is schedule_timeout_killable(), I'm fine with adding
cond_resched() in other places.

> 
> If you agree, I'll propose your patch with a changelog that indicates it 
> can fix the soft lockup issue for UP and can likely get a tested-by for 
> it.
> 

Please go ahead.


  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-17  3:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-10 21:39 David Rientjes
2020-03-10 22:05 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-03-10 22:55   ` David Rientjes
2020-03-11  9:34     ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-03-11 19:38       ` David Rientjes
2020-03-11 22:04         ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-03-11 22:14           ` David Rientjes
2020-03-12  0:12             ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-03-12 18:07               ` David Rientjes
2020-03-12 22:32                 ` Andrew Morton
2020-03-16  9:31                   ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-16 10:04                     ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-03-16 10:14                       ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-13  0:15                 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-03-13 22:01                   ` David Rientjes
2020-03-13 23:15                     ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-03-13 23:32                       ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-03-16 23:59                         ` David Rientjes
2020-03-17  3:18                           ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2020-03-17  4:09                             ` David Rientjes
2020-03-18  0:55                               ` [patch v2] " David Rientjes
2020-03-18  9:42                                 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-18 21:40                                   ` David Rientjes
2020-03-18 22:03                                     ` [patch v3] " David Rientjes
2020-03-19  7:09                                       ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-12  4:23             ` [patch] " Tetsuo Handa
2020-03-10 22:10 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-10 23:02   ` David Rientjes
2020-03-11  8:27     ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-11 19:45       ` David Rientjes
2020-03-12  8:32         ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-12 18:20           ` David Rientjes
2020-03-12 20:16             ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-16  9:32               ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-11  0:18 ` Andrew Morton
2020-03-11  0:34   ` David Rientjes
2020-03-11  8:36   ` 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=202003170318.02H3IpSx047471@www262.sakura.ne.jp \
    --to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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