On 2024/12/18 18:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 18-12-24 17:00:38, Chen Ridong wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024/12/18 15:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 18-12-24 15:44:34, Chen Ridong wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2024/12/17 20:54, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> On Tue 17-12-24 12:18:28, Chen Ridong wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
>>>>>> index 1c485beb0b93..14260381cccc 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
>>>>>> @@ -390,6 +390,7 @@ static int dump_task(struct task_struct *p, void *arg)
>>>>>> if (!is_memcg_oom(oc) && !oom_cpuset_eligible(p, oc))
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + cond_resched();
>>>>>> task = find_lock_task_mm(p);
>>>>>> if (!task) {
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>
>>>>> This is called from RCU read lock for the global OOM killer path and I
>>>>> do not think you can schedule there. I do not remember specifics of task
>>>>> traversal for crgoup path but I guess that you might need to silence the
>>>>> soft lockup detector instead or come up with a different iteration
>>>>> scheme.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, Michal.
>>>>
>>>> I made a mistake. I added cond_resched in the mem_cgroup_scan_tasks
>>>> function below the fn, but after reconsideration, it may cause
>>>> unnecessary scheduling for other callers of mem_cgroup_scan_tasks.
>>>> Therefore, I moved it into the dump_task function. However, I missed the
>>>> RCU lock from the global OOM.
>>>>
>>>> I think we can use touch_nmi_watchdog in place of cond_resched, which
>>>> can silence the soft lockup detector. Do you think that is acceptable?
>>>
>>> It is certainly a way to go. Not the best one at that though. Maybe we
>>> need different solution for the global and for the memcg OOMs. During
>>> the global OOM we rarely care about latency as the whole system is
>>> likely to struggle. Memcg ooms are much more likely. Having that many
>>> tasks in a memcg certainly requires a further partitioning so if
>>> configured properly the OOM latency shouldn't be visible much. But I am
>>> wondering whether the cgroup task iteration could use cond_resched while
>>> the global one would touch_nmi_watchdog for every N iterations. I might
>>> be missing something but I do not see any locking required outside of
>>> css_task_iter_*.
>>
>> Do you mean like that:
>
> I've had something like this (untested) in mind
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 7b3503d12aaf..37abc94abd2e 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1167,10 +1167,14 @@ void mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, memcg) {
> struct css_task_iter it;
> struct task_struct *task;
> + unsigned int i = 0
>
> css_task_iter_start(&iter->css, CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS, &it);
> - while (!ret && (task = css_task_iter_next(&it)))
> + while (!ret && (task = css_task_iter_next(&it))) {
> ret = fn(task, arg);
> + if (++i % 1000)
> + cond_resched();
> + }
> css_task_iter_end(&it);
> if (ret) {
> mem_cgroup_iter_break(memcg, iter);
Thank you for your patience.
I had this idea in mind as well.
However, there are two considerations that led me to reconsider it:
1. I wasn't convinced about how we should call cond_resched every N
iterations. Should it be 1000 or 10000?
2. I don't think all callers of mem_cgroup_scan_tasks need cond_resched.
Only fn is expensive (e.g., dump_tasks), and it needs cond_resched. At
least, I have not encountered any other issue except except when fn is
dump_tasks.
If you think this is acceptable, I will test and update the patch.
Best regards,
Ridong
