Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 24-08-17 21:18:26, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Manish Jaggi noticed that running LTP oom01/oom02 ltp tests with high core
> > count causes random kernel panics when an OOM victim which consumed memory
> > in a way the OOM reaper does not help was selected by the OOM killer [1].
> >
> > Since commit 696453e66630ad45 ("mm, oom: task_will_free_mem should skip
> > oom_reaped tasks") changed task_will_free_mem(current) in out_of_memory()
> > to return false as soon as MMF_OOM_SKIP is set, many threads sharing the
> > victim's mm were not able to try allocation from memory reserves after the
> > OOM reaper gave up reclaiming memory.
> >
> > I proposed a patch which alllows task_will_free_mem(current) in
> > out_of_memory() to ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP for once so that all OOM victim
> > threads are guaranteed to have tried ALLOC_OOM allocation attempt before
> > start selecting next OOM victims [2], for Michal Hocko did not like
> > calling get_page_from_freelist() from the OOM killer which is a layer
> > violation [3]. But now, Michal thinks that calling get_page_from_freelist()
> > after task_will_free_mem(current) test is better than allowing
> > task_will_free_mem(current) to ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP for once [4], for
> > this would help other cases when we race with an exiting tasks or somebody
> > managed to free memory while we were selecting an OOM victim which can take
> > quite some time.
>
> This a lot of text which can be more confusing than helpful. Could you
> state the problem clearly without detours? Yes, the oom killer selection
> can race with those freeing memory. And it has been like that since
> basically ever.
The problem which Manish Jaggi reported (and I can still reproduce) is that
the OOM killer ignores MMF_OOM_SKIP mm too early. And the problem became real
in 4.8 due to commit 696453e66630ad45 ("mm, oom: task_will_free_mem should skip
oom_reaped tasks"). Thus, it has _not_ been like that since basically ever.
> Doing a last minute allocation attempt might help. Now
> there are more important questions. How likely is that. Do people have
> to care? __alloc_pages_may_oom already does a almost-the-last moment
> allocation. Do we still need it?
get_page_from_freelist() in __alloc_pages_may_oom() would help only if
MMF_OOM_SKIP is set after some memory is reclaimed. But the problem is
that MMF_OOM_SKIP is set without reclaiming any memory.
> It also does ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH
> allocation which your path doesn't do.
The intent of this patch is to replace "[PATCH v2] mm, oom:
task_will_free_mem(current) should ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP for once."
which you have nacked 3 days ago.
> I wanted to remove this some time
> ago but it has been pointed out that this was really needed
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8153841/ Maybe things have changed
> and if so please explain.
get_page_from_freelist() in __alloc_pages_may_oom() will remain needed
because it can help allocations which do not call oom_kill_process() (i.e.
allocations which do "goto out;" in __alloc_pages_may_oom() without calling
out_of_memory(), and allocations which do "return;" in out_of_memory()
without calling oom_kill_process() (e.g. !__GFP_FS)) to succeed.
--
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>
