On Sat 20-05-17 00:22:30, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 19-05-17 22:02:44, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Any allocation failure during the #PF path will return with VM_FAULT_OOM > > > > which in turn results in pagefault_out_of_memory. This can happen for > > > > 2 different reasons. a) Memcg is out of memory and we rely on > > > > mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize to perform the memcg OOM handling or b) > > > > normal allocation fails. > > > > > > > > The later is quite problematic because allocation paths already trigger > > > > out_of_memory and the page allocator tries really hard to not fail > > > > > > We made many memory allocation requests from page fault path (e.g. XFS) > > > __GFP_FS some time ago, didn't we? But if I recall correctly (I couldn't > > > find the message), there are some allocation requests from page fault path > > > which cannot use __GFP_FS. Then, not all allocation requests can call > > > oom_kill_process() and reaching pagefault_out_of_memory() will be > > > inevitable. > > > > Even if such an allocation fail without the OOM killer then we simply > > retry the PF and will do that the same way how we keep retrying the > > allocation inside the page allocator. So how is this any different? > > You are trying to remove out_of_memory() from pagefault_out_of_memory() > by this patch. But you also want to make !__GFP_FS allocations not to > keep retrying inside the page allocator in future kernels, don't you? I would _love_ to but I am much less optimistic this is achiveable > Then, a thread which need to allocate memory from page fault path but > cannot call oom_kill_process() will spin forever (unless somebody else > calls oom_kill_process() via a __GFP_FS allocation request). I consider > that introducing such possibility is a problem. What I am trying to say is that this is already happening. The difference with the VM_FAULT_OOM would only be that the whole PF path would be unwinded back to the PF, all locks dropped and then the PF retries so in principle this would be safer. > > > > allocations. Anyway, if the OOM killer has been already invoked there > > > > is no reason to invoke it again from the #PF path. Especially when the > > > > OOM condition might be gone by that time and we have no way to find out > > > > other than allocate. > > > > > > > > Moreover if the allocation failed and the OOM killer hasn't been > > > > invoked then we are unlikely to do the right thing from the #PF context > > > > because we have already lost the allocation context and restictions and > > > > therefore might oom kill a task from a different NUMA domain. > > > > > > If we carry a flag via task_struct that indicates whether it is an memory > > > allocation request from page fault and allocation failure is not acceptable, > > > we can call out_of_memory() from page allocator path. > > > > I do not understand > > We need to allocate memory from page fault path in order to avoid spinning forever > (unless somebody else calls oom_kill_process() via a __GFP_FS allocation request), > doesn't it? Then, memory allocation requests from page fault path can pass flags > like __GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_KILLABLE because retrying the page fault without > allocating memory is pointless. I called such flags as carry a flag via task_struct. > > > > By the way, can page fault occur after reaching do_exit()? When a thread > > > reached do_exit(), fatal_signal_pending(current) becomes false, doesn't it? > > > > yes fatal_signal_pending will be false at the time and I believe we can > > perform a page fault past that moment and go via allocation path which would > > trigger the OOM or give this task access to reserves but it is more > > likely that the oom reaper will push to kill another task by that time > > if the situation didn't get resolved. Or did I miss your concern? > > How checking fatal_signal_pending() here helps? It just skips the warning because we know that we would handle the signal before retrying the page fault and go to exit path. Those that do not have such a signal should warn just that we know that such a situation happens. With the current allocator semantic it shouldn't > It only suppresses printk(). > If current thread needs to allocate memory because not all allocation requests > can call oom_kill_process(), doing printk() is not the right thing to do. > Allocate memory by some means (e.g. __GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_KILLABLE) will be > the right thing to do. Why would looping inside an allocator with a restricted context be any better than retrying the whole thing? -- 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>
