From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] memcg, oom: remove explicit wakeup in mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize()
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:38:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZD+agX9/xxLe2cK+@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230419030739.115845-2-haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
On Wed 19-04-23 03:07:39, Haifeng Xu wrote:
> 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>
I hope I haven't missed anything but this looks good to me. One way to
test this would be a parallel OOM triggering workload which uses page
faults and an automatic user space driven oom killer (detect under_oom
and send SIGKILL to a random task after a random timeout). Objective is
that no task gets stuck in mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize. I am pretty sure
this could be easily turned into a selftest.
Acked-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
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-19 7:38 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 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] memcg, oom: remove explicit wakeup " Haifeng Xu
2023-04-19 7:38 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
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=ZD+agX9/xxLe2cK+@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=haifeng.xu@shopee.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--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