On Mon 18-09-17 15:31:31, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > The synchronization has worked this way for a long time (trylock
> > > > failure assuming progress, but the order/NOFS/zone bailouts from
> > > > actually OOM-killing inside the locked section). We should really fix
> > > > *that* rather than serializing warn_alloc().
> > > >
> > > > For GFP_NOFS, it seems to go back to 9879de7373fc ("mm: page_alloc:
> > > > embed OOM killing naturally into allocation slowpath"). Before that we
> > > > didn't use to call __alloc_pages_may_oom() for NOFS allocations. So I
> > > > still wonder why this only now appears to be causing problems.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, converting that trylock to a sleeping lock in this case
> > > > makes sense to me. Nobody is blocking under this lock (except that one
> > > > schedule_timeout_killable(1) after dispatching a victim) and it's not
> > > > obvious to me why we'd need that level of concurrency under OOM.
> > >
> > > You can try http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1500202791-5427-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > and http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1503577106-9196-2-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx together.
> > > Then, we can remove mutex_lock(&oom_lock) serialization from __oom_reap_task_mm()
> > > which still exists because Andrea's patch was accepted instead of Michal's patch.
> >
> > We can safely drop the oom_lock from __oom_reap_task_mm now. Andrea
> > didn't want to do it in his patch because that is a separate thing
> > logically. But nothing should prefent the removal now that AFAICS.
>
> No! The oom_lock in __oom_reap_task_mm() is still required due to lack of
> really last second allocation attempt. If we do really last second
> allocation attempt, we can remove the oom_lock from __oom_reap_task_mm().
Yes, there is a race possible but this is not a _correctness_ issue. It is
a mere suboptimality. This can and should be addressed separately. I was
not really opposed to your patch to move the last allocation attempt
before oom_kill_process once all the concerns are clarified.
> Enter __alloc_pages_may_oom() Enter __oom_reap_task_mm()
>
> Take oom_lock
>
> Try last get_page_from_freelist()
>
> No "take oom_lock" here
>
> Reap memory
>
> Set MMF_OOM_SKIP
>
> No "release oom_lock" here
>
> Leave __oom_reap_task_mm()
>
> Enter out_of_memory()
>
> Enter select_bad_process()
>
> Enter oom_evaluate_task()
>
> Check if MMF_OOM_SKIP is already set
>
> Leave oom_evaluate_task()
>
> Leave select_bad_process()
>
> No "really last get_page_from_freelist()" here
>
> Kill the next victim needlessly
>
> Leave out_of_memory()
>
> Release oom_lock
>
> Leave __alloc_pages_may_oom()
--
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>
