From: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
To: mhocko@suse.com
Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
shakeelb@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] memcg, oom: remove explicit wakeup in mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize()
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 03:07:39 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230419030739.115845-2-haifeng.xu@shopee.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZDUxVG2otm5i12o2@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Before commit 29ef680ae7c2 ("memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to
the charge path"), all memcg oom killers were delayed to page fault
path. And the explicit wakeup is used in this case:
thread A:
...
if (locked) { // complete oom-kill, hold the lock
mem_cgroup_oom_unlock(memcg);
...
}
...
thread B:
...
if (locked && !memcg->oom_kill_disable) {
...
} else {
schedule(); // can't acquire the lock
...
}
...
The reason is that thread A kicks off the OOM-killer, which leads to
wakeups from the uncharges of the exiting task. But thread B is not
guaranteed to see them if it enters the OOM path after the OOM kills
but before thread A releases the lock.
Now only oom_kill_disable case is handled from the #PF path. In that
case it is userspace to trigger the wake up not the #PF path itself.
All potential paths to free some charges are responsible to call
memcg_oom_recover() , so the explicit wakeup is not needed in the
mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize() path which doesn't release any memory
itself.
Signed-off-by: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
---
v2: split original into two and improve patch description
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 9 +--------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index fbf4d2bb1003..710ce3e7824f 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -2003,15 +2003,8 @@ bool mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize(bool handle)
mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(memcg);
finish_wait(&memcg_oom_waitq, &owait.wait);
- if (locked) {
+ if (locked)
mem_cgroup_oom_unlock(memcg);
- /*
- * There is no guarantee that an OOM-lock contender
- * sees the wakeups triggered by the OOM kill
- * uncharges. Wake any sleepers explicitly.
- */
- memcg_oom_recover(memcg);
- }
cleanup:
current->memcg_in_oom = NULL;
css_put(&memcg->css);
--
2.25.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-19 3:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <ZDUxVG2otm5i12o2@dhcp22.suse.cz>
2023-04-19 3:07 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] memcg, oom: remove unnecessary check " Haifeng Xu
2023-04-19 7:35 ` Michal Hocko
2023-04-19 3:07 ` Haifeng Xu [this message]
2023-04-19 7:38 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] memcg, oom: remove explicit wakeup " 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=20230419030739.115845-2-haifeng.xu@shopee.com \
--to=haifeng.xu@shopee.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--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