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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 07:04:20 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <993e7783-60e9-ba03-b512-c829b9e833fd@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2003111235080.171292@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On 2020/03/12 4:38, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> 
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>>>>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>>>>> @@ -2637,6 +2637,8 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
>>>>>  		unsigned long reclaimed;
>>>>>  		unsigned long scanned;
>>>>>  
>>>>> +		cond_resched();
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Is this safe for CONFIG_PREEMPTION case? If current thread has realtime priority,
>>>> can we guarantee that the OOM victim (well, the OOM reaper kernel thread rather
>>>> than the OOM victim ?) gets scheduled?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it's the best we can do that immediately solves the issue unless 
>>> you have another idea in mind?
>>
>> "schedule_timeout_killable(1) outside of oom_lock" or "the OOM reaper grabs oom_lock
>> so that allocating threads guarantee that the OOM reaper gets scheduled" or "direct OOM
>> reaping so that allocating threads guarantee that some memory is reclaimed".
>>
> 
> The cond_resched() here is needed if the iteration is lengthy depending on 
> the number of descendant memcgs already.

No. cond_resched() here will become no-op if CONFIG_PREEMPTION=y and current
thread has realtime priority.

> 
> schedule_timeout_killable(1) does not make any guarantees that current 
> will be scheduled after the victim or oom_reaper on UP systems.

The point of schedule_timeout_*(1) is to guarantee that current thread
will yield CPU to other threads even if CONFIG_PREEMPTION=y and current
thread has realtime priority case. There is no guarantee that current
thread will be rescheduled immediately after a sleep is irrelevant.

> 
> If you have an alternate patch to try, we can test it.  But since this 
> cond_resched() is needed anyway, I'm not sure it will change the result.

schedule_timeout_killable(1) is an alternate patch to try; I don't think
that this cond_resched() is needed anyway.

> 
>>>
>>>>>  		switch (mem_cgroup_protected(target_memcg, memcg)) {
>>>>>  		case MEMCG_PROT_MIN:
>>>>>  			/*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>


  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-11 22:04 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 [this message]
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
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=993e7783-60e9-ba03-b512-c829b9e833fd@i-love.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