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:
>>>>> /*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
next prev parent 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