On Thu 12-10-17 15:03:12, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 04:24:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > And we will simply mark the victim MMF_OOM_SKIP and hide it from the oom > > killer if we fail to get the mmap_sem after several attempts. This will > > allow to find a new victim. So we shouldn't deadlock. > > It's less likely to deadlock, but not exactly deadlock-free. There > might not BE any other mm's holding significant amounts of memory. true, try_charge would have to return with failure when out_of_memory returns with false of course. > > > What do you mean by 'v2'? > > > > cgroup v2 because the legacy memcg allowed sync wait for the oom killer > > and that would be a bigger problem from a deep callchains for obevious > > reasons. > > Actually, the async oom killing code isn't dependent on cgroup > version. cgroup1 doesn't wait inside the charge context, either. Sorry, I was just not clear. What I meant to say, would couldn't make v1 wait inside the try_charge path because async oom killing wouldn't help for the oom disabled case (aka user space oom handling). > > > > > > c) Overcharge kmem to oom memcg and queue an async memcg limit checker, > > > > > > which will oom kill if needed. > > > > > > > > > > This makes the most sense to me. Architecturally, I imagine this would > > > > > look like b), with an OOM handler at the point of return to userspace, > > > > > except that we'd overcharge instead of retrying the syscall. > > > > > > > > I do not think we should break the hard limit semantic if possible. We > > > > can currently allow that for allocations which are very short term (oom > > > > victims) or too important to fail but allowing that for kmem charges in > > > > general sounds like too easy to runaway. > > > > > > I'm not sure there is a convenient way out of this. > > > > > > If we want to respect the hard limit AND guarantee allocation success, > > > the OOM killer has to free memory reliably - which it doesn't. But if > > > it did, we could also break the limit temporarily and have the OOM > > > killer replenish the pool before that userspace app can continue. The > > > allocation wouldn't have to be short-lived, since memory is fungible. > > > > If we can guarantee the oom killer is started then we can allow temporal > > access to reserves which is already implemented even for memcg. The > > thing is we do not invoke the oom killer... > > You lost me here. Which reserves? > > All I'm saying is that, when the syscall-context fails to charge, we > should do mem_cgroup_oom() to set up the async OOM killer, let the > charge succeed over the hard limit - since the OOM killer will most > likely get us back below the limit - then mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize() > before the syscall returns to userspace. OK, then we are on the same page now. Your initial wording didn't mention async OOM killer. This makes more sense. Although I would argue that we can retry the charge as long as out_of_memory finds a victim. This would return ENOMEM to the pathological cases where no victims could be found. -- 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>
