Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 18-05-17 22:57:10, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > It is racy and it basically doesn't have any allocation context so we > > > might kill a task from a different domain. So can we do this instead? > > > There is a slight risk that somebody might have returned VM_FAULT_OOM > > > without doing an allocation but from my quick look nobody does that > > > currently. > > > > I can't tell whether it is safe to remove out_of_memory() from > > pagefault_out_of_memory(). There are VM_FAULT_OOM users in fs/ > > directory. What happens if pagefault_out_of_memory() was called as a > > result of e.g. GFP_NOFS allocation failure? > > Then we would bypass GFP_NOFS oom protection and could trigger a > premature OOM killer invocation. Excuse me, but I couldn't understand your answer. We have __GFP_FS check in out_of_memory(). If we remove out_of_memory() from pagefault_out_of_memory(), pagefault_out_of_memory() called as a result of a !__GFP_FS allocation failure won't be able to call oom_kill_process(). Unless somebody else calls oom_kill_process() via a __GFP_FS allocation request, a thread which triggered a page fault event will spin forever. > > > Is it guaranteed that all memory allocations that might occur from > > page fault event (or any action that might return VM_FAULT_OOM) > > are allowed to call oom_kill_process() from out_of_memory() before > > reaching pagefault_out_of_memory() ? > > The same applies here. So, my question is, can pagefault_out_of_memory() be called as a result of an allocation request (or action) which cannot call oom_kill_process() ? Please answer with "yes" or "no". > > > Anyway, I want > > > > /* Avoid allocations with no watermarks from looping endlessly */ > > - if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE)) > > + if (alloc_flags == ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS && test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE)) > > goto nopage; > > > > so that we won't see similar backtraces and memory information from both > > out_of_memory() and warn_alloc(). > > I do not think this is an improvement and it is unrelated to the > discussion here. If we allow current thread to allocate memory when current thread was chosen as an OOM victim by giving current thread a chance to do ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS allocation request, all memory allocation requests that might occur from page fault event will likely succeed and thus current thread will not call pagefault_out_of_memory(). This will prevent current thread from selecting next OOM victim by calling out_of_memory() from pagefault_out_of_memory(). -- 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>
