On Wed 18-05-16 22:30:14, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 18-05-16 21:20:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > Since commit 3a5dda7a17cf3706 ("oom: prevent unnecessary oom kills or
> > > kernel panics"), select_bad_process() is using for_each_process_thread().
> > >
> > > Since oom_unkillable_task() scans all threads in the caller's thread group
> > > and oom_task_origin() scans signal_struct of the caller's thread group, we
> > > don't need to call oom_unkillable_task() and oom_task_origin() on each
> > > thread. Also, since !mm test will be done later at oom_badness(), we don't
> > > need to do !mm test on each thread. Therefore, we only need to do
> > > TIF_MEMDIE test on each thread.
> > >
> > > If we track number of TIF_MEMDIE threads inside signal_struct, we don't
> > > need to do TIF_MEMDIE test on each thread. This will allow
> > > select_bad_process() to use for_each_process().
> >
> > I am wondering whether signal_struct is the best way forward. The oom
> > killing is more about mm_struct than anything else. We can record that
> > the mm was oom killed in mm->flags (similar to MMF_OOM_REAPED). I guess
> > this would require more work at this stage so maybe starting with signal
> > struct is not that bad afterall. Just thinking...
>
> Even if you call p->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN case a bug,
> (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) || is_global_init(p) case is still possible.
I couldn't care less about such a case to be honest, and that is not a
reason the cripple the code for such an insanity. There simply doesn't
make any sense to share init's mm with a different task.
> Thus, I think we can't mark the mm was oom killed in mm->flags.
[...]
> >From d770bd777e628e9d1ae250249433cf576aae8961 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 22:17:47 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v3] mm,oom: speed up select_bad_process() loop.
>
> Since commit 3a5dda7a17cf3706 ("oom: prevent unnecessary oom kills or
> kernel panics"), select_bad_process() is using for_each_process_thread().
>
> Since oom_unkillable_task() scans all threads in the caller's thread group
> and oom_task_origin() scans signal_struct of the caller's thread group, we
> don't need to call oom_unkillable_task() and oom_task_origin() on each
> thread. Also, since !mm test will be done later at oom_badness(), we don't
> need to do !mm test on each thread. Therefore, we only need to do
> TIF_MEMDIE test on each thread.
>
> If we track number of TIF_MEMDIE threads inside signal_struct, we don't
> need to do TIF_MEMDIE test on each thread. This will allow
> select_bad_process() to use for_each_process().
>
> This patch adds a counter to signal_struct for tracking how many
> TIF_MEMDIE threads are in a given thread group, and check it at
> oom_scan_process_thread() so that select_bad_process() can use
> for_each_process() rather than for_each_process_thread().
OK, this looks correct. Strictly speaking the patch is missing any note
on _why_ this is needed or an improvement. I would add something like
the following:
"
Although the original code was correct it was quite inefficient because
each thread group was scanned num_threads times which can be a lot
especially with processes with many threads. Even though the OOM is
extremely cold path it is always good to be as effective as possible
when we are inside rcu_read_lock() - aka unpreemptible context.
"
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
> mm/oom_kill.c | 14 ++++++--------
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 870a700..1589f8e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -794,6 +794,7 @@ struct signal_struct {
> struct tty_audit_buf *tty_audit_buf;
> #endif
>
> + atomic_t oom_victims; /* # of TIF_MEDIE threads in this thread group */
> /*
> * Thread is the potential origin of an oom condition; kill first on
> * oom
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index c0e37dd..8e151d0 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -283,12 +283,8 @@ enum oom_scan_t oom_scan_process_thread(struct oom_control *oc,
> * This task already has access to memory reserves and is being killed.
> * Don't allow any other task to have access to the reserves.
> */
> - if (test_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_MEMDIE)) {
> - if (!is_sysrq_oom(oc))
> - return OOM_SCAN_ABORT;
> - }
> - if (!task->mm)
> - return OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE;
> + if (!is_sysrq_oom(oc) && atomic_read(&task->signal->oom_victims))
> + return OOM_SCAN_ABORT;
>
> /*
> * If task is allocating a lot of memory and has been marked to be
> @@ -307,12 +303,12 @@ enum oom_scan_t oom_scan_process_thread(struct oom_control *oc,
> static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(struct oom_control *oc,
> unsigned int *ppoints, unsigned long totalpages)
> {
> - struct task_struct *g, *p;
> + struct task_struct *p;
> struct task_struct *chosen = NULL;
> unsigned long chosen_points = 0;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> - for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
> + for_each_process(p) {
> unsigned int points;
>
> switch (oom_scan_process_thread(oc, p, totalpages)) {
> @@ -673,6 +669,7 @@ void mark_oom_victim(struct task_struct *tsk)
> /* OOM killer might race with memcg OOM */
> if (test_and_set_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_MEMDIE))
> return;
> + atomic_inc(&tsk->signal->oom_victims);
> /*
> * Make sure that the task is woken up from uninterruptible sleep
> * if it is frozen because OOM killer wouldn't be able to free
> @@ -690,6 +687,7 @@ void exit_oom_victim(struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> if (!test_and_clear_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_MEMDIE))
> return;
> + atomic_dec(&tsk->signal->oom_victims);
>
> if (!atomic_dec_return(&oom_victims))
> wake_up_all(&oom_victims_wait);
> --
> 1.8.3.1
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>