On Thu 22-06-17 09:53:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > David Rientjes wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > Umm... So, you are pointing out that select_bad_process() aborts based on > > > TIF_MEMDIE or MMF_OOM_SKIP is broken because victim threads can be removed > > > from global task list or cgroup's task list. Then, the OOM killer will have to > > > wait until all mm_struct of interested OOM domain (system wide or some cgroup) > > > is reaped by the OOM reaper. Simplest way is to wait until all mm_struct are > > > reaped by the OOM reaper, for currently we are not tracking which memory cgroup > > > each mm_struct belongs to, are we? But that can cause needless delay when > > > multiple OOM events occurred in different OOM domains. Do we want to (and can we) > > > make it possible to tell whether each mm_struct queued to the OOM reaper's list > > > belongs to the thread calling out_of_memory() ? > > > > > > > I am saying that taking mmget() in mark_oom_victim() and then only > > dropping it with mmput_async() after it can grab mm->mmap_sem, which the > > exit path itself takes, or the oom reaper happens to schedule, causes > > __mmput() to be called much later and thus we remove the process from the > > tasklist or call cgroup_exit() earlier than the memory can be unmapped > > with your patch. As a result, subsequent calls to the oom killer kills > > everything before the original victim's mm can undergo __mmput() because > > the oom reaper still holds the reference. > > Here is "wait for all mm_struct are reaped by the OOM reaper" version. Well, this is getting more and more hairy. I think we should explore the possibility of oom_reaper vs. exit_mmap working together after all. Yes, I've said that a solution fully withing the oom proper would be preferable but this just grows into complex hairy mess. Maybe we just find out that oom_reaper vs. exit_mmap is just not feasible and we will reconsider this approach in the end but let's try a clean solution first. As I've said there is nothing fundamentally hard about parallel unmapping MADV_DONTNEED does that already. We just have to iron out those tiny details. -- 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>
