On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:51:52 +0200
Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu 14-07-11 18:30:14, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:00:17 +0200
> > Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu 14-07-11 11:59:13, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:02:59 +0900
> > > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:05:49 +0200
> > > > > Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > > This patch replaces the counter by a simple {un}lock semantic. We are
> > > > > > using only 0 and 1 to distinguish those two states.
> > > > > > As mem_cgroup_oom_{un}lock works on the hierarchy we have to make sure
> > > > > > that we cannot race with somebody else which is already guaranteed
> > > > > > because we call both functions with the mutex held. All other consumers
> > > > > > just read the value atomically for a single group which is sufficient
> > > > > > because we set the value atomically.
> > > > > > The other thing is that only that process which locked the oom will
> > > > > > unlock it once the OOM is handled.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > mm/memcontrol.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
> > > > > > 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > > > index e013b8e..f6c9ead 100644
> > > > > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > > > @@ -1803,22 +1803,31 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem,
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > * Check OOM-Killer is already running under our hierarchy.
> > > > > > * If someone is running, return false.
> > > > > > + * Has to be called with memcg_oom_mutex
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > static bool mem_cgroup_oom_lock(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > - int x, lock_count = 0;
> > > > > > + int x, lock_count = -1;
> > > > > > struct mem_cgroup *iter;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, mem) {
> > > > > > - x = atomic_inc_return(&iter->oom_lock);
> > > > > > - lock_count = max(x, lock_count);
> > > > > > + x = !!atomic_add_unless(&iter->oom_lock, 1, 1);
> > > > > > + if (lock_count == -1)
> > > > > > + lock_count = x;
> > > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm...Assume following hierarchy.
> > > > >
> > > > > A
> > > > > B C
> > > > > D E
> > >
> > > IIUC, A, B, D, E are one hierarchy, right?
> > >
> > yes.
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The orignal code hanldes the situation
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. B-D-E is under OOM
> > > > > 2. A enters OOM after 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > In original code, A will not invoke OOM (because B-D-E oom will kill a process.)
> > > > > The new code invokes A will invoke new OOM....right ?
> > >
> > > Sorry, I do not understand what you mean by that.
> >
> > This is your code.
> > ==
> > for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, mem) {
> > - x = atomic_inc_return(&iter->oom_lock);
> > - lock_count = max(x, lock_count);
> > + x = !!atomic_add_unless(&iter->oom_lock, 1, 1);
> > + if (lock_count == -1)
> > + lock_count = x;
> > +
> > + /* New child can be created but we shouldn't race with
> > + * somebody else trying to oom because we are under
> > + * memcg_oom_mutex
> > + */
> > + BUG_ON(lock_count != x);
> > }
> > ==
> >
> > When, B,D,E is under OOM,
> >
> > A oom_lock = 0
> > B oom_lock = 1
> > C oom_lock = 0
> > D oom_lock = 1
> > E oom_lock = 1
> >
> > Here, assume A enters OOM.
> >
> > A oom_lock = 1 -- (*)
> > B oom_lock = 1
> > C oom_lock = 1
> > D oom_lock = 1
> > E oom_lock = 1
> >
> > because of (*), mem_cgroup_oom_lock() will return lock_count=1, true.
> >
> > Then, a new oom-killer will another oom-kiiler running in B-D-E.
>
> OK, does this mean that for_each_mem_cgroup_tree doesn't lock the whole
> hierarchy at once?
yes. this for_each_mem_cgroup_tree() just locks a subtree.
> I have to confess that the behavior of mem_cgroup_start_loop is little
> bit obscure to me. The comment says it searches for the cgroup with the
> minimum ID - I assume this is the root of the hierarchy. Is this
> correct?
>
No. Assume following sequence.
1. cgcreate -g memory:X css_id=5 assigned.
........far later.....
2. cgcreate -g memory:A css_id=30 assigned.
3. cgdelete -g memory:X css_id=5 freed.
4. cgcreate -g memory:A/B
5. cgcreate -g memory:A/C
6. cgcreate -g memory:A/B/D
7. cgcreate -g memory:A/B/E
Then, css_id will be
==
A css_id=30
B css_id=5 # reuse X's id.
C css_id=31
D css_id=32
E css_id=33
==
Then, the search under "B" will find B->D->E
The search under "A" will find B->A->C->D->E.
> If yes then if we have oom in what-ever cgroup in the hierarchy then
> the above code should lock the whole hierarchy and the above never
> happens. Right?
Yes and no. old code allows following happens at the same time.
A
B C
D E F
B-D-E goes into OOM because of B's limit.
C-F goes into OOM because of C's limit
When you stop OOM under A because of B's limit, C can't invoke OOM.
After a little more consideration, my suggestion is,
=== lock ===
bool success = true;
...
for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, mem) {
success &= !!atomic_add_unless(&iter->oom_lock, 1, 1);
/* "break" loop is not allowed because of css refcount....*/
}
return success.
By this, when a sub-hierarchy is under OOM, don't invoke new OOM.
=== unlock ===
struct mem_cgroup *oom_root;
oom_root = memcg;
do {
struct mem_cgroup *parent;
parent = mem_cgroup_parent(oom_root);
if (!parent || !parent->use_hierarchy)
break;
if (atomic_read(&parent->oom_lock))
break;
} while (1);
for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, oom_root)
atomic_add_unless(&iter->oom_lock, -1, 0);
By this, at unlock, unlock oom-lock of a hierarchy which was under oom_lock
because of a sub-hierarchy was under OOM.
==
Maybe not complicated as my 1st patch.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>