On Sun 24-10-21 00:01:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2021/10/23 22:20, Vasily Averin wrote: > > /* > > - * The pagefault handler calls here because it is out of memory, so kill a > > - * memory-hogging task. If oom_lock is held by somebody else, a parallel oom > > - * killing is already in progress so do nothing. > > + * The pagefault handler calls here because some allocation has failed. We have > > + * to take care of the memcg OOM here because this is the only safe context without > > + * any locks held but let the oom killer triggered from the allocation context care > > + * about the global OOM. > > */ > > Excuse me for a stupid question. I consider > > if (!mutex_trylock(&oom_lock)) > return; > out_of_memory(&oc); > mutex_unlock(&oom_lock); > > here as the last resort (safeguard) when neither __alloc_pages_may_oom() > nor mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() can make progress. This patch says > > let the oom killer triggered from the allocation context care > about the global OOM. > > but what if the OOM killer cannot be invoked from the allocation context? > Is there a guarantee that all memory allocations which might result in > VM_FAULT_OOM can invoke the OOM killer? I do not think there is any guarantee. This code has meant to be a safeguard but it turns out to be adding more harm than a safety. There are several scenarios mentioned in this thread where this would be counter productive or outright wrong thing to do. On the other hand it is hard to imagine any legitimate situation where this would be a right thing to do. Maybe you have something more specific in mind? What would be the legit code to rely on OOM handling out of the line (where the details about the allocation scope is lost)? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
