On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:51:48 +0300 Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In case of memory deficit and low percpu memory pages,
> pcpu_balance_workfn() takes pcpu_alloc_mutex for a long
> time (as it makes memory allocations itself and waits
> for memory reclaim). If tasks doing pcpu_alloc() are
> choosen by OOM killer, they can't exit, because they
> are waiting for the mutex.
>
> The patch makes pcpu_alloc() to care about killing signal
> and use mutex_lock_killable(), when it's allowed by GFP
> flags. This guarantees, a task does not miss SIGKILL
> from OOM killer.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/percpu.c
> +++ b/mm/percpu.c
> @@ -1369,8 +1369,12 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t align, bool reserved,
> return NULL;
> }
>
> - if (!is_atomic)
> - mutex_lock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
> + if (!is_atomic) {
> + if (gfp & __GFP_NOFAIL)
> + mutex_lock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
> + else if (mutex_lock_killable(&pcpu_alloc_mutex))
> + return NULL;
> + }
It would benefit from a comment explaining why we're doing this (it's
for the oom-killer).
My memory is weak and our documentation is awful. What does
mutex_lock_killable() actually do and how does it differ from
mutex_lock_interruptible()? Userspace tasks can run pcpu_alloc() and I
wonder if there's any way in which a userspace-delivered signal can
disrupt another userspace task's memory allocation attempt?
