On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:17:52 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:47:52 +0900
> Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:23:39 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > > 1st patch is for better handling oom-kill under memcg.
> > > > It's bigger than I expected, but it basically looks good to me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > BTW, do you think we need quick fix ? I can't think of a very easy/small fix
> > > which is very correct...
> > To be honest, yes.
>
> Okay. following is a candidate we can have. This will be incomplete until
> we have oom notifier for memcg but may be better than miss-firing
> page_fault_out_of_memory. Nishimura-san, how do you think this ?
> (Added Andrew to CC.)
>
Thank you very much for your patch.
I agree it's enough for quick fix, and it seems to work.
> ==
>
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuk <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> In current page-fault code,
>
> handle_mm_fault()
> -> ...
> -> mem_cgroup_charge()
> -> map page or handle error.
> -> check return code.
>
> If page fault's return code is VM_FAULT_OOM, page_fault_out_of_memory()
> is called. But if it's caused by memcg, OOM should have been already
> invoked.
> Then, I added a patch: a636b327f731143ccc544b966cfd8de6cb6d72c6
>
> That patch records last_oom_jiffies for memcg's sub-hierarchy and
> prevents page_fault_out_of_memory from being invoked in near future.
>
> But Nishimura-san reported that check by jiffies is not enough
> when the system is terribly heavy.
>
> This patch changes memcg's oom logic as.
> * If memcg causes OOM-kill, continue to retry.
> * memcg hangs when there are no task to be killed.
IIUC, this behavior is the same as current behavior. mem_cgroup_out_of_memory()
hangs if all of the tasks in the cgroup are OOM_DISABLE'ed.
> * remove jiffies check which is used now.
>
> TODO:
> * add oom notifier for informing management daemon.
> * more clever sleep logic for avoiding to use much CPU.
>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuk <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 6 ----
> mm/memcontrol.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
> mm/oom_kill.c | 28 ++++++++++++----------
> 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
>
> Index: mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> ===================================================================
> --- mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11.orig/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -124,7 +124,6 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_disabled(v
> return false;
> }
>
> -extern bool mem_cgroup_oom_called(struct task_struct *task);
> void mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(struct page *page, int val);
> unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(struct zone *zone, int order,
> gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
> @@ -258,11 +257,6 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_disabled(v
> return true;
> }
>
> -static inline bool mem_cgroup_oom_called(struct task_struct *task)
> -{
> - return false;
> -}
> -
> static inline int
> mem_cgroup_inactive_anon_is_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> Index: mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11/mm/memcontrol.c
> ===================================================================
> --- mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -200,7 +200,6 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> * Should the accounting and control be hierarchical, per subtree?
> */
> bool use_hierarchy;
> - unsigned long last_oom_jiffies;
> atomic_t refcnt;
>
> unsigned int swappiness;
> @@ -1234,34 +1233,6 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_recla
> return total;
> }
>
> -bool mem_cgroup_oom_called(struct task_struct *task)
> -{
> - bool ret = false;
> - struct mem_cgroup *mem;
> - struct mm_struct *mm;
> -
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - mm = task->mm;
> - if (!mm)
> - mm = &init_mm;
> - mem = mem_cgroup_from_task(rcu_dereference(mm->owner));
> - if (mem && time_before(jiffies, mem->last_oom_jiffies + HZ/10))
> - ret = true;
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> - return ret;
> -}
> -
> -static int record_last_oom_cb(struct mem_cgroup *mem, void *data)
> -{
> - mem->last_oom_jiffies = jiffies;
> - return 0;
> -}
> -
> -static void record_last_oom(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> -{
> - mem_cgroup_walk_tree(mem, NULL, record_last_oom_cb);
> -}
> -
> /*
> * Currently used to update mapped file statistics, but the routine can be
> * generalized to update other statistics as well.
> @@ -1549,11 +1520,27 @@ static int __mem_cgroup_try_charge(struc
> }
>
> if (!nr_retries--) {
> - if (oom) {
> - mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask);
> - record_last_oom(mem_over_limit);
> + if (!oom)
> + goto nomem;
> + mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask);
> + /*
> + * If killed someone, we can retry. If killed myself,
> + * allow to go ahead in force.
> + *
> + * Note: There may be a case we can never kill any
> + * processes under us.(by OOM_DISABLE) But, in that
> + * case, if we return -ENOMEM, pagefault_out_of_memory
> + * will kill someone innocent, out of this memcg.
> + * So, what we can do is just try harder..
> + */
> + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE)) {
Is "if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) || fatal_signal_pending(current))" better
to accept SIGKILL ?
> + css_put(&mem->css);
> + *memcg = NULL;
> + return 0;
> }
> - goto nomem;
> + /* give chance to run */
> + schedule_timeout(1);
> + nr_retries = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
> }
> }
> if (csize > PAGE_SIZE)
> @@ -2408,8 +2395,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_end_migration(struct mem
>
> /*
> * A call to try to shrink memory usage on charge failure at shmem's swapin.
> - * Calling hierarchical_reclaim is not enough because we should update
> - * last_oom_jiffies to prevent pagefault_out_of_memory from invoking global OOM.
> + * Calling hierarchical_reclaim is not enough. We may have to call OOM.
> * Moreover considering hierarchy, we should reclaim from the mem_over_limit,
> * not from the memcg which this page would be charged to.
> * try_charge_swapin does all of these works properly.
> Index: mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11/mm/oom_kill.c
> ===================================================================
> --- mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11.orig/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -466,27 +466,39 @@ static int oom_kill_process(struct task_
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR
> +/*
> + * When select_bad_process() can't find proper process and we failed to
> + * kill current, returns 0 as faiulre of OOM-kill. Otherwise, returns 1.
> + */
hmm, what function does this comment describe ?
mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() returns void.
Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.
> void mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *mem, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> unsigned long points = 0;
> struct task_struct *p;
> + int not_found = 0;
>
> if (sysctl_panic_on_oom == 2)
> panic("out of memory(memcg). panic_on_oom is selected.\n");
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> retry:
> + not_found = 0;
> p = select_bad_process(&points, mem);
> if (PTR_ERR(p) == -1UL)
> goto out;
> -
> - if (!p)
> + if (!p) {
> + not_found = 1;
> p = current;
> + printk(KERN_ERR "It seems there are no killable processes "
> + "under memcg in OOM. Try to kill current\n");
> + }
>
> if (oom_kill_process(p, gfp_mask, 0, points, mem,
> - "Memory cgroup out of memory"))
> - goto retry;
> + "Memory cgroup out of memory")) {
> + if (!not_found) /* some race with OOM_DISABLE etc ? */
> + goto retry;
> + }
> out:
> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> + /* Even if we don't kill any, give chance to try to recalim more */
> }
> #endif
>
> @@ -601,13 +613,6 @@ void pagefault_out_of_memory(void)
> /* Got some memory back in the last second. */
> return;
>
> - /*
> - * If this is from memcg, oom-killer is already invoked.
> - * and not worth to go system-wide-oom.
> - */
> - if (mem_cgroup_oom_called(current))
> - goto rest_and_return;
> -
> if (sysctl_panic_on_oom)
> panic("out of memory from page fault. panic_on_oom is selected.\n");
>
> @@ -619,7 +624,6 @@ void pagefault_out_of_memory(void)
> * Give "p" a good chance of killing itself before we
> * retry to allocate memory.
> */
> -rest_and_return:
> if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
> schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> }
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>