On Fri 21-07-17 06:47:11, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 19-07-17 05:51:03, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > So what? I haven't see anybody disputing the correctness. And to be
> > honest I really dislike your patch. Yet another round kind of solutions
> > are just very ugly hacks usually because they are highly timing
> > sensitive.
>
> Yes, OOM killer is highly timing sensitive.
>
> >
> > > Even if that patch is safe, this patch still helps with CONFIG_MMU=n case.
> >
> > Could you explain how?
>
> Nothing prevents sequence below.
>
> Process-1 Process-2
>
> Takes oom_lock.
> Fails get_page_from_freelist().
> Enters out_of_memory().
> Gets SIGKILL.
> Gets TIF_MEMDIE.
> Leaves out_of_memory().
> Releases oom_lock.
> Enters do_exit().
> Calls __mmput().
> Takes oom_lock.
> Fails get_page_from_freelist().
> Releases some memory.
> Sets MMF_OOM_SKIP.
> Enters out_of_memory().
> Selects next victim because there is no !MMF_OOM_SKIP mm.
> Sends SIGKILL needlessly.
>
> If we ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP once, we can avoid sequence above.
But we set MMF_OOM_SKIP _after_ the process lost its address space (well
after the patch which allows to race oom reaper with the exit_mmap).
>
> Process-1 Process-2
>
> Takes oom_lock.
> Fails get_page_from_freelist().
> Enters out_of_memory().
> Get SIGKILL.
> Get TIF_MEMDIE.
> Leaves out_of_memory().
> Releases oom_lock.
> Enters do_exit().
> Calls __mmput().
> Takes oom_lock.
> Fails get_page_from_freelist().
> Releases some memory.
> Sets MMF_OOM_SKIP.
> Enters out_of_memory().
> Ignores MMF_OOM_SKIP mm once.
> Leaves out_of_memory().
> Releases oom_lock.
> Succeeds get_page_from_freelist().
OK, so let's say you have another task just about to jump into
out_of_memory and ... end up in the same situation. This race is just
unavoidable.
> Strictly speaking, this patch is independent with OOM reaper.
> This patch increases possibility of succeeding get_page_from_freelist()
> without sending SIGKILL. Your patch is trying to drop it silently.
>
> Serializing setting of MMF_OOM_SKIP with oom_lock is one approach,
> and ignoring MMF_OOM_SKIP once without oom_lock is another approach.
Or simply making sure that we only set the flag _after_ the address
space is gone, which is what I am proposing.
--
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>
