Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 27-06-17 22:31:58, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 27-06-17 20:39:28, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > I wonder why you prefer timeout based approach. Your patch will after all
> > > > > > set MMF_OOM_SKIP if operations between down_write() and up_write() took
> > > > > > more than one second.
> > > > >
> > > > > if we reach down_write then we have unmapped the address space in
> > > > > exit_mmap and oom reaper cannot do much more.
> > > >
> > > > So, by the time down_write() is called, majority of memory is already released, isn't it?
> > >
> > > In most cases yes. To be put it in other words. By the time exit_mmap
> > > takes down_write there is nothing more oom reaper could reclaim.
> > >
> > Then, aren't there two exceptions which your patch cannot guarantee;
> > down_write(&mm->mmap_sem) in __ksm_exit() and __khugepaged_exit() ?
>
> yes it cannot. Those would be quite rare situations. Somebody holding
> the mmap sem would have to block those to wait for too long (that too
> long might be for ever actually if we are livelocked). We cannot rule
> that out of course and I would argue that it would be more appropriate
> to simply go after another task in those rare cases. There is not much
> we can really do. At some point the oom reaper has to give up and move
> on otherwise we are back to square one when OOM could deadlock...
>
> Maybe we can actually get rid of this down_write but I would go that way
> only when it proves to be a real issue.
>
> > Since for some reason exit_mmap() cannot be brought to before
> > ksm_exit(mm)/khugepaged_exit(mm) calls,
>
> 9ba692948008 ("ksm: fix oom deadlock") would tell you more about the
> ordering and the motivation.
I don't understand ksm nor khugepaged. But that commit was actually calling
ksm_exit() just before free_pgtables() in exit_mmap(). It is ba76149f47d8c939
("thp: khugepaged") which added /* must run before exit_mmap */ comment.
>
> >
> > ksm_exit(mm);
> > khugepaged_exit(mm); /* must run before exit_mmap */
> > exit_mmap(mm);
> >
> > shouldn't we try __oom_reap_task_mm() before calling these down_write()
> > if mm is OOM victim's?
>
> This is what we try. We simply try to get mmap_sem for read and do our
> work as soon as possible with the proposed patch. This is already an
> improvement, no?
We can ask the OOM reaper kernel thread try to reap before the OOM killer
releases oom_lock mutex. But that is not guaranteed. It is possible that
the OOM victim thread is executed until down_write() in __ksm_exit() or
__khugepaged_exit() and then the OOM reaper kernel thread starts calling
down_read_trylock().
--
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>
