From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f200.google.com (mail-pf0-f200.google.com [209.85.192.200])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BEE6B0005
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 17:07:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-f200.google.com with SMTP id z22so9581023pfi.7
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65])
        by mx.google.com with SMTPS id l3-v6sor5220551pld.69.2018.04.24.14.07.54
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>
        (Google Transport Security);
        Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v2] mm, oom: fix concurrent munlock and oom reaperunmap
In-Reply-To: <20180424203148.GW17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804241359280.186801@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804191214130.157851@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <20180420082349.GW17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180420124044.GA17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804212019400.84222@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <201804221248.CHE35432.FtOMOLSHOFJFVQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804231706340.18716@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <20180424130432.GB17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804241256000.231037@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <20180424201352.GV17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804241317200.231037@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20180424203148.GW17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, guro@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:

> > > > My patch has passed intensive testing on both x86 and powerpc, so I'll ask 
> > > > that it's pushed for 4.17-rc3.  Many thanks to Tetsuo for the suggestion 
> > > > on calling __oom_reap_task_mm() from exit_mmap().
> > > 
> > > Yeah, but your patch does have a problem with blockable mmu notifiers
> > > IIUC.
> > 
> > What on earth are you talking about?  exit_mmap() does 
> > mmu_notifier_release().  There are no blockable mmu notifiers.
> 
> MMF_OOM_SKIP - remember? The thing that guarantees a forward progress.
> So we cannot really depend on setting MMF_OOM_SKIP if a
> mmu_notifier_release blocks for an excessive/unbounded amount of time.
> 

If the thread is blocked in exit_mmap() because of mmu_notifier_release() 
then the oom reaper will eventually grab mm->mmap_sem (nothing holding it 
in exit_mmap()), return true, and oom_reap_task() will set MMF_OOM_SKIP.  
This is unchanged with the patch and is a completely separate issue.

> Look I am not really interested in disussing this to death but it would
> be really _nice_ if you could calm down a bit, stop fighting for the solution
> you have proposed and ignore the feedback you are getting.
> 

I assume we should spend more time considering the two untested patches 
you have sent, one of which killed 17 processes while a 8GB memory hog was 
exiting because the oom reaper couldn't grab mm->mmap_sem and set 
MMF_OOM_SKIP.

> There are two things to care about here. Stop the race that can blow up
> and do not regress MMF_OOM_SKIP guarantee. Can we please do that.

My patch does both.

Thanks.