From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
shuah@kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team <kernel-team@android.com>,
Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/2] mm: drop oom code from exit_mmap
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2022 14:50:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpH5Y-DnJgep2SPuX8TwJR7SUr=B0Tp3jkre_en8xQjKaQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpHcPhDYTpLj8Vo+W9Q6KkWdT_BOTaEfJW6_PDCPx5kD-A@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 2:47 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 2:36 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 31 May 2022 15:30:59 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The primary reason to invoke the oom reaper from the exit_mmap path used
> > > to be a prevention of an excessive oom killing if the oom victim exit
> > > races with the oom reaper (see [1] for more details). The invocation has
> > > moved around since then because of the interaction with the munlock
> > > logic but the underlying reason has remained the same (see [2]).
> > >
> > > Munlock code is no longer a problem since [3] and there shouldn't be
> > > any blocking operation before the memory is unmapped by exit_mmap so
> > > the oom reaper invocation can be dropped. The unmapping part can be done
> > > with the non-exclusive mmap_sem and the exclusive one is only required
> > > when page tables are freed.
> > >
> > > Remove the oom_reaper from exit_mmap which will make the code easier to
> > > read. This is really unlikely to make any observable difference although
> > > some microbenchmarks could benefit from one less branch that needs to be
> > > evaluated even though it almost never is true.
> > >
> > > [1] 212925802454 ("mm: oom: let oom_reap_task and exit_mmap run concurrently")
> > > [2] 27ae357fa82b ("mm, oom: fix concurrent munlock and oom reaper unmap, v3")
> > > [3] a213e5cf71cb ("mm/munlock: delete munlock_vma_pages_all(), allow oomreap")
> > >
> >
> > I've just reinstated the mapletree patchset so there are some
> > conflicting changes.
> >
> > > --- a/include/linux/oom.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/oom.h
> > > @@ -106,8 +106,6 @@ static inline vm_fault_t check_stable_address_space(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > -
> > > long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p,
> > > unsigned long totalpages);
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> > > index 2b9305ed0dda..b7918e6bb0db 100644
> > > --- a/mm/mmap.c
> > > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> > > @@ -3110,30 +3110,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > /* mm's last user has gone, and its about to be pulled down */
> > > mmu_notifier_release(mm);
> > >
> > > - if (unlikely(mm_is_oom_victim(mm))) {
> > > - /*
> > > - * Manually reap the mm to free as much memory as possible.
> > > - * Then, as the oom reaper does, set MMF_OOM_SKIP to disregard
> > > - * this mm from further consideration. Taking mm->mmap_lock for
> > > - * write after setting MMF_OOM_SKIP will guarantee that the oom
> > > - * reaper will not run on this mm again after mmap_lock is
> > > - * dropped.
> > > - *
> > > - * Nothing can be holding mm->mmap_lock here and the above call
> > > - * to mmu_notifier_release(mm) ensures mmu notifier callbacks in
> > > - * __oom_reap_task_mm() will not block.
> > > - */
> > > - (void)__oom_reap_task_mm(mm);
> > > - set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags);
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - mmap_write_lock(mm);
> > > + mmap_read_lock(mm);
> >
> > Unclear why this patch fiddles with the mm_struct locking in this
> > fashion - changelogging that would have been helpful.
>
> Yeah, I should have clarified this in the description. Everything up
> to unmap_vmas() can be done under mmap_read_lock and that way
> oom-reaper and process_mrelease can do the unmapping in parallel with
> exit_mmap. That's the reason we take mmap_read_lock, unmap the vmas,
> mark the mm with MMF_OOM_SKIP and take the mmap_write_lock to execute
> free_pgtables. I think maple trees do not change that except there is
> no mm->mmap anymore, so the line at the end of exit_mmap where we
> reset mm->mmap to NULL can be removed (I show that line below).
In the current changelog I have this explanation:
"The unmapping part can be done with the non-exclusive mmap_sem and
the exclusive one is only required when page tables are freed."
should I resend a v3 with a more detailed explanation for these
mmap_lock manipulations?
>
> >
> > But iirc mapletree wants to retain a write_lock here, so I ended up with
> >
> > void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > {
> > struct mmu_gather tlb;
> > struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > unsigned long nr_accounted = 0;
> > MA_STATE(mas, &mm->mm_mt, 0, 0);
> > int count = 0;
> >
> > /* mm's last user has gone, and its about to be pulled down */
> > mmu_notifier_release(mm);
> >
> > mmap_write_lock(mm);
> > arch_exit_mmap(mm);
> >
> > vma = mas_find(&mas, ULONG_MAX);
> > if (!vma) {
> > /* Can happen if dup_mmap() received an OOM */
> > mmap_write_unlock(mm);
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > lru_add_drain();
> > flush_cache_mm(mm);
> > tlb_gather_mmu_fullmm(&tlb, mm);
> > /* update_hiwater_rss(mm) here? but nobody should be looking */
> > /* Use ULONG_MAX here to ensure all VMAs in the mm are unmapped */
> > unmap_vmas(&tlb, &mm->mm_mt, vma, 0, ULONG_MAX);
> >
> > /*
> > * Set MMF_OOM_SKIP to hide this task from the oom killer/reaper
> > * because the memory has been already freed. Do not bother checking
> > * mm_is_oom_victim because setting a bit unconditionally is cheaper.
> > */
> > set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags);
> > free_pgtables(&tlb, &mm->mm_mt, vma, FIRST_USER_ADDRESS,
> > USER_PGTABLES_CEILING);
> > tlb_finish_mmu(&tlb);
> >
> > /*
> > * Walk the list again, actually closing and freeing it, with preemption
> > * enabled, without holding any MM locks besides the unreachable
> > * mmap_write_lock.
> > */
> > do {
> > if (vma->vm_flags & VM_ACCOUNT)
> > nr_accounted += vma_pages(vma);
> > remove_vma(vma);
> > count++;
> > cond_resched();
> > } while ((vma = mas_find(&mas, ULONG_MAX)) != NULL);
> >
> > BUG_ON(count != mm->map_count);
> >
> > trace_exit_mmap(mm);
> > __mt_destroy(&mm->mm_mt);
> > mm->mmap = NULL;
>
> ^^^ this line above needs to be removed when the patch is applied over
> the maple tree patchset.
>
>
> > mmap_write_unlock(mm);
> > vm_unacct_memory(nr_accounted);
> > }
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-01 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-31 22:30 Suren Baghdasaryan
2022-05-31 22:31 ` [PATCH RESEND v2 2/2] mm: delete unused MMF_OOM_VICTIM flag Suren Baghdasaryan
2022-08-22 22:21 ` Andrew Morton
2022-08-22 22:33 ` Yu Zhao
2022-08-22 22:48 ` Andrew Morton
2022-08-22 22:59 ` Yu Zhao
2022-08-22 23:16 ` Andrew Morton
2022-08-22 23:20 ` Yu Zhao
2022-08-23 8:36 ` Michal Hocko
2022-08-28 19:50 ` Yu Zhao
2022-06-01 21:36 ` [PATCH RESEND v2 1/2] mm: drop oom code from exit_mmap Andrew Morton
2022-06-01 21:47 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2022-06-01 21:50 ` Suren Baghdasaryan [this message]
2022-06-02 6:53 ` Michal Hocko
2022-06-02 13:31 ` Liam Howlett
2022-06-02 14:08 ` Michal Hocko
2022-06-02 13:39 ` Matthew Wilcox
2022-06-02 15:02 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
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='CAJuCfpH5Y-DnJgep2SPuX8TwJR7SUr=B0Tp3jkre_en8xQjKaQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=surenb@google.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=liam.howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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