On 2018/09/06 22:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 06-09-18 22:40:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2018/09/06 21:05, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> If you are too busy, please show "the point of no-blocking" using source code
>>>> instead. If such "the point of no-blocking" really exists, it can be executed
>>>> by allocating threads.
>>>
>>> I would have to study this much deeper but I _suspect_ that we are not
>>> taking any blocking locks right after we return from unmap_vmas. In
>>> other words the place we used to have synchronization with the
>>> oom_reaper in the past.
>>
>> See commit 97b1255cb27c551d ("mm,oom_reaper: check for MMF_OOM_SKIP before
>> complaining"). Since this dependency is inode-based (i.e. irrelevant with
>> OOM victims), waiting for this lock can livelock.
>>
>> So, where is safe "the point of no-blocking" ?
>
> Ohh, right unlink_file_vma and its i_mmap_rwsem lock. As I've said I
> have to think about that some more. Maybe we can split those into two parts.
>
Meanwhile, I'd really like to use timeout based back off. Like I wrote at
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201809060703.w8673Kbs076435@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ,
we need to wait for some period after all.
We can replace timeout based back off after we got safe "the point of no-blocking" .
