On Tue 19-07-16 09:54:26, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:41:24AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > The original intention of f9054c70d28b was to help with the OOM > > situations where the oom victim depends on mempool allocation to make a > > forward progress. We can handle that case in a different way, though. We > > can check whether the current task has access to memory reserves ad an > > OOM victim (TIF_MEMDIE) and drop __GFP_NOMEMALLOC protection if the pool > > is empty. > > > > David Rientjes was objecting that such an approach wouldn't help if the > > oom victim was blocked on a lock held by process doing mempool_alloc. This > > is very similar to other oom deadlock situations and we have oom_reaper > > to deal with them so it is reasonable to rely on the same mechanism > > rather inventing a different one which has negative side effects. > > I don't understand how this scenario wouldn't be a flat-out bug. > > Mempool guarantees forward progress by having all necessary memory > objects for the guaranteed operation in reserve. Think about it this > way: you should be able to delete the pool->alloc() call entirely and > still make reliable forward progress. It would kill concurrency and be > super slow, but how could it be affected by a system OOM situation? Yes this is my understanding of the mempool usage as well. It is much harder to check whether mempool users are really behaving and they do not request more than the pre allocated pool allows them, though. That would be a bug in the consumer not the mempool as such of course. My original understanding of f9054c70d28b was that it acts as a prevention for issues where the OOM victim loops inside the mempool_alloc not doing reasonable progress because those who should refill the pool are stuck for some reason (aka assume that not all mempool users are behaving or they have unexpected dependencies like WQ without WQ_MEM_RECLAIM and similar). My thinking was that the victim has access to memory reserves by default so it sounds reasonable to preserve this access also when it is in the mempool_alloc. Therefore I wanted to preserve that particular logic and came up with this patch which should be safer than f9054c70d28b. But the more I am thinking about it the more it sounds like papering over a bug somewhere else. So I guess we should just go and revert f9054c70d28b and get back to David's lockup and investigate what exactly went wrong and why. The current form of f9054c70d28b is simply too dangerous. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
