Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 11-07-17 22:10:36, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 10-07-17 22:54:37, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Sat 08-07-17 13:59:54, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > Quoting from http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170705081956.GA14538@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx : > > > > > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat 01-07-17 20:43:56, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > > > > > You are rejecting serialization under OOM without giving a chance to test > > > > > > > > side effects of serialization under OOM at linux-next.git. I call such attitude > > > > > > > > "speculation" which you never accept. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No I am rejecting abusing the lock for purpose it is not aimed for. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, why adding a new lock (not oom_lock but warn_alloc_lock) is not acceptable? > > > > > > Since warn_alloc_lock is aimed for avoiding messages by warn_alloc() getting > > > > > > jumbled, there should be no reason you reject this lock. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't like locks, can you instead accept below one? > > > > > > > > > > No, seriously! Just think about what you are proposing. You are stalling > > > > > and now you will stall _random_ tasks even more. Some of them for > > > > > unbound amount of time because of inherent unfairness of cmpxchg. > > > > > > > > The cause of stall when oom_lock is already held is that threads which failed to > > > > hold oom_lock continue almost busy looping; schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1) is > > > > not sufficient when there are multiple threads doing the same thing, for direct > > > > reclaim/compaction consumes a lot of CPU time. > > > > > > > > What makes this situation worse is, since warn_alloc() periodically appends to > > > > printk() buffer, the thread inside the OOM killer with oom_lock held can stall > > > > forever due to cond_resched() from console_unlock() from printk(). > > > > > > warn_alloc is just yet-another-user of printk. We might have many > > > others... > > > > warn_alloc() is different from other users of printk() that printk() is called > > as long as oom_lock is already held by somebody else processing console_unlock(). > > So what exactly prevents any other caller of printk interfering while > the oom is ongoing? Other callers of printk() are not doing silly things like "while(1) printk();". They don't call printk() until something completes (e.g. some operation returned an error code) or they do throttling. Only watchdog calls printk() without waiting for something to complete (because watchdog is there in order to warn that something might be wrong). But watchdog is calling printk() carefully not to cause flooding (e.g. khungtaskd sleeps enough) and not to cause lockups (e.g. khungtaskd calls rcu_lock_break()). As far as I can observe, only warn_alloc() for watchdog trivially causes flooding and lockups. > > > > > > > > > > Below change significantly reduces possibility of falling into printk() v.s. oom_lock > > > > lockup problem, for the thread inside the OOM killer with oom_lock held no longer > > > > blocks inside printk(). Though there still remains possibility of sleeping for > > > > unexpectedly long at schedule_timeout_killable(1) with the oom_lock held. > > > > > > This just papers over the real problem. > > > > > > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > > > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > > > > @@ -1051,8 +1051,10 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc) > > > > panic("Out of memory and no killable processes...\n"); > > > > } > > > > if (oc->chosen && oc->chosen != (void *)-1UL) { > > > > + preempt_disable(); > > > > oom_kill_process(oc, !is_memcg_oom(oc) ? "Out of memory" : > > > > "Memory cgroup out of memory"); > > > > + preempt_enable_no_resched(); > > > > /* > > > > * Give the killed process a good chance to exit before trying > > > > * to allocate memory again. > > > > > > > > I wish we could agree with applying this patch until printk-kthread can > > > > work reliably... > > > > > > And now you have introduced soft lockups most probably because > > > oom_kill_process can take some time... Or maybe even sleeping while > > > atomic warnings if some code path needs to sleep for whatever reason. > > > The real fix is make sure that printk doesn't take an arbitrary amount of > > > time. > > > > The OOM killer is not permitted to wait for __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM allocations > > directly/indirectly (because it will cause recursion deadlock). Thus, even if > > some code path needs to sleep for some reason, that code path is not permitted to > > wait for __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM allocations directly/indirectly. Anyway, I can > > propose scattering preempt_disable()/preempt_enable_no_resched() around printk() > > rather than whole oom_kill_process(). You will just reject it as you have rejected > > in the past. > > because you are trying to address a problem at a wrong layer. If there > is absolutely no way around it and printk is unfixable then we really > need a printk variant which will make sure that no excessive waiting > will be involved. Then we can replace all printk in the oom path with > this special printk. Writing data faster than readers can read is wrong, especially when writers deprive readers of CPU time to read. > > [...] > > > > You are trying to hammer this particular path but you should realize > > > that as long as printk can take an unbound amount of time then there are > > > many other land mines which need fixing. It is simply not feasible to go > > > after each and ever one of them and try to tweak them around. So please > > > stop proposing these random hacks and rather try to work with prink guys > > > to find solution for this long term printk limitation. OOM killer is a > > > good usecase to give this a priority. > > > > Whatever approach we use for printk() not to take unbound amount of time > > (e.g. just enqueue to log_buf using per a thread flag), we might still take > > unbound amount of time if we allow cond_sched() (or whatever sleep some > > code path might need to use) with the oom_lock held. After all, the OOM killer > > is ignoring scheduling priority problem regardless of printk() lockup problem. > > > > I don't have objection about making sure that printk() doesn't take an arbitrary > > amount of time. But the real fix is make sure that out_of_memory() doesn't take > > an arbitrary amount of time (i.e. don't allow cond_resched() etc. at all) unless > > there is cooperation from other allocating threads which failed to hold oom_lock. > > As I've said out_of_memory is an expensive operation and as such it has > to be preemptible. Addressing this would require quite some work. But calling out_of_memory() with SCHED_IDLE priority makes overall allocations far more expensive. If you want to keep out_of_memory() preemptible, you should make sure that out_of_memory() is executed with !SCHED_IDLE priority. Offloading to a dedicated kernel thread like oom_reaper will do it. -- 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>
