Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 18-07-17 23:06:50, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Commit e2fe14564d3316d1 ("oom_reaper: close race with exiting task")
> > guarded whole OOM reaping operations using oom_lock. But there was no
> > need to guard whole operations. We needed to guard only setting of
> > MMF_OOM_REAPED flag because get_page_from_freelist() in
> > __alloc_pages_may_oom() is called with oom_lock held.
> >
> > If we change to guard only setting of MMF_OOM_SKIP flag, the OOM reaper
> > can start reaping operations as soon as wake_oom_reaper() is called.
> > But since setting of MMF_OOM_SKIP flag at __mmput() is not guarded with
> > oom_lock, guarding only the OOM reaper side is not sufficient.
> >
> > If we change the OOM killer side to ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP flag once,
> > there is no need to guard setting of MMF_OOM_SKIP flag, and we can
> > guarantee a chance to call get_page_from_freelist() in
> > __alloc_pages_may_oom() without depending on oom_lock serialization.
> >
> > This patch makes MMF_OOM_SKIP act as if MMF_OOM_REAPED, and adds a new
> > flag which acts as if MMF_OOM_SKIP, in order to close both race window
> > (the OOM reaper side and __mmput() side) without using oom_lock.
>
> Why do we need this patch when
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170626130346.26314-1-mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx
> already removes the lock and solves another problem at once?
We haven't got an answer from Hugh and/or Andrea whether that patch is safe.
Even if that patch is safe, this patch still helps with CONFIG_MMU=n case.
--
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>
