> On Thu, 12 Mar 2020, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > If you have an alternate patch to try, we can test it. But since this
> > > cond_resched() is needed anyway, I'm not sure it will change the result.
> >
> > schedule_timeout_killable(1) is an alternate patch to try; I don't think
> > that this cond_resched() is needed anyway.
> >
>
> You are suggesting schedule_timeout_killable(1) in shrink_node_memcgs()?
>
Andrew Morton also mentioned whether cond_resched() in shrink_node_memcgs()
is enough. But like you mentioned,
David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > @@ -2637,6 +2637,8 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
> > > unsigned long reclaimed;
> > > unsigned long scanned;
> > >
> > > + cond_resched();
> > > +
> > > switch (mem_cgroup_protected(target_memcg, memcg)) {
> > > case MEMCG_PROT_MIN:
> > > /*
> >
> >
> > Obviously better, but this will still spin wheels until this tasks's
> > timeslice expires, and we might want to do something to help ensure
> > that the victim runs next (or soon)?
> >
>
> We used to have a schedule_timeout_killable(1) to address exactly that
> scenario but it was removed in 4.19:
>
> commit 9bfe5ded054b8e28a94c78580f233d6879a00146
> Author: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri Aug 17 15:49:04 2018 -0700
>
> mm, oom: remove sleep from under oom_lock
you can try re-adding sleep outside of oom_lock:
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index d09776cd6e10..3aee7e0eca4e 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1576,6 +1576,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
*/
ret = should_force_charge() || out_of_memory(&oc);
mutex_unlock(&oom_lock);
+ schedule_timeout_killable(1);
return ret;
}
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 3c4eb750a199..e80158049651 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3797,7 +3797,6 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
*/
if (!mutex_trylock(&oom_lock)) {
*did_some_progress = 1;
- schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
return NULL;
}
@@ -4590,6 +4589,7 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
/* Retry as long as the OOM killer is making progress */
if (did_some_progress) {
+ schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
no_progress_loops = 0;
goto retry;
}
By the way, will you share the reproducer (and how to use the reproducer) ?
