On Fri 16-12-16 20:39:12, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 15-12-16 15:54:37, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:07 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > /* Avoid allocations with no watermarks from looping endlessly */
> > > > - if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> > > > + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
> > > > goto nopage;
> > > >
> > > Nit: currently we allow TIF_MEMDIE & __GFP_NOFAIL request to
> > > try direct reclaim. Are you intentionally reclaiming that chance?
> >
> > That is definitely not a nit! Thanks for catching that. We definitely
> > shouldn't bypass the direct reclaim because that would mean we rely on
> > somebody else makes progress for us.
> >
> > Updated patch below:
> > ---
> > From cebd2d933f245a59504fdce31312b67186311e50 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 07:52:58 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator slowpath
> >
> > Tetsuo Handa has pointed out that 0a0337e0d1d1 ("mm, oom: rework oom
> > detection") has subtly changed semantic for costly high order requests
> > with __GFP_NOFAIL and withtout __GFP_REPEAT and those can fail right now.
> > My code inspection didn't reveal any such users in the tree but it is
> > true that this might lead to unexpected allocation failures and
> > subsequent OOPs.
> >
> > __alloc_pages_slowpath wrt. GFP_NOFAIL is hard to follow currently.
> > There are few special cases but we are lacking a catch all place to be
> > sure we will not miss any case where the non failing allocation might
> > fail. This patch reorganizes the code a bit and puts all those special
> > cases under nopage label which is the generic go-to-fail path. Non
> > failing allocations are retried or those that cannot retry like
> > non-sleeping allocation go to the failure point directly. This should
> > make the code flow much easier to follow and make it less error prone
> > for future changes.
> >
> > While we are there we have to move the stall check up to catch
> > potentially looping non-failing allocations.
>
> Currently we allow TIF_MEMDIE && __GFP_NOFAIL threads to call
> __alloc_pages_may_oom() after !__alloc_pages_direct_reclaim() &&
> !__alloc_pages_direct_compact() && !should_reclaim_retry() &&
> !should_compact_retry().
>
> But this patch changes TIF_MEMDIE && __GFP_NOFAIL threads not to call
> __alloc_pages_may_oom(). If this is intentional, please describe it
> (i.e. this patch adds a location which currently does not cause OOM
> livelock) in change log.
No, it's not intentional. And you have a point, we shouldn't bypass
__alloc_pages_may_oom. Does the following on top look any better?
---
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 3f44a5115b4c..095e2fa286de 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3667,10 +3667,6 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
if (page)
goto got_pg;
- /* Avoid allocations with no watermarks from looping endlessly */
- if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
- goto nopage;
-
/* Do not loop if specifically requested */
if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)
goto nopage;
@@ -3703,6 +3699,10 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
if (page)
goto got_pg;
+ /* Avoid allocations with no watermarks from looping endlessly */
+ if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
+ goto nopage;
+
/* Retry as long as the OOM killer is making progress */
if (did_some_progress) {
no_progress_loops = 0;
--
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>