On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 1:02 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 18.07.21 23:41, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > In modern systems it's not unusual to have a system component monitoring > > memory conditions of the system and tasked with keeping system memory > > pressure under control. One way to accomplish that is to kill > > non-essential processes to free up memory for more important ones. > > Examples of this are Facebook's OOM killer daemon called oomd and > > Android's low memory killer daemon called lmkd. > > For such system component it's important to be able to free memory > > quickly and efficiently. Unfortunately the time process takes to free > > up its memory after receiving a SIGKILL might vary based on the state > > of the process (uninterruptible sleep), size and OPP level of the core > > the process is running. A mechanism to free resources of the target > > process in a more predictable way would improve system's ability to > > control its memory pressure. > > Introduce process_mrelease system call that releases memory of a dying > > process from the context of the caller. This way the memory is freed in > > a more controllable way with CPU affinity and priority of the caller. > > The workload of freeing the memory will also be charged to the caller. > > The operation is allowed only on a dying process. > > > > Previously I proposed a number of alternatives to accomplish this: > > - https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1060407 extending > > pidfd_send_signal to allow memory reaping using oom_reaper thread; > > - https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1338196 extending > > pidfd_send_signal to reap memory of the target process synchronously from > > the context of the caller; > > - https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1344419/ to add MADV_DONTNEED > > support for process_madvise implementing synchronous memory reaping. > > To me, this looks a lot cleaner. Although I do wonder why we need two > separate mechanisms to achieve the end goal > > 1. send sigkill > 2. process_mrelease > > As 2. doesn't make sense without 1. it somehow feels like it would be > optimal to achieve both steps in a single syscall. But I remember there > were discussions around that. Yep, we recently discussed the approach in this thread: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1450952/#1652452 > > > > > The end of the last discussion culminated with suggestion to introduce a > > dedicated system call (https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1344418/#1553875) > > The reasoning was that the new variant of process_madvise > > a) does not work on an address range > > b) is destructive > > c) doesn't share much code at all with the rest of process_madvise > > From the userspace point of view it was awkward and inconvenient to provide > > memory range for this operation that operates on the entire address space. > > Using special flags or address values to specify the entire address space > > was too hacky. > > > > The API is as follows, > > > > int process_mrelease(int pidfd, unsigned int flags); > > > > DESCRIPTION > > The process_mrelease() system call is used to free the memory of > > a process which was sent a SIGKILL signal. > > > > The pidfd selects the process referred to by the PID file > > descriptor. > > (See pidofd_open(2) for further information) > > > > The flags argument is reserved for future use; currently, this > > argument must be specified as 0. > > > > RETURN VALUE > > On success, process_mrelease() returns 0. On error, -1 is > > returned and errno is set to indicate the error. > > > > ERRORS > > EBADF pidfd is not a valid PID file descriptor. > > > > EAGAIN Failed to release part of the address space. > > > > EINVAL flags is not 0. > > > > EINVAL The task does not have a pending SIGKILL or its memory is > > shared with another process with no pending SIGKILL. > > > > ENOSYS This system call is not supported by kernels built with no > > MMU support (CONFIG_MMU=n). > > > > ESRCH The target process does not exist (i.e., it has terminated > > and been waited on). > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > mm/oom_kill.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > > index d04a13dc9fde..7fbfa70d4e97 100644 > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ > > #include <linux/sched/task.h> > > #include <linux/sched/debug.h> > > #include <linux/swap.h> > > +#include <linux/syscalls.h> > > #include <linux/timex.h> > > #include <linux/jiffies.h> > > #include <linux/cpuset.h> > > @@ -755,10 +756,64 @@ static int __init oom_init(void) > > return 0; > > } > > subsys_initcall(oom_init) > > + > > +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(process_mrelease, int, pidfd, unsigned int, flags) > > +{ > > + struct pid *pid; > > + struct task_struct *task; > > + struct mm_struct *mm = NULL; > > + unsigned int f_flags; > > + long ret = 0; > > Nit: reverse Christmas tree. Ack. Will reorder like this: struct mm_struct *mm = NULL; struct task_struct *task; unsigned int f_flags; struct pid *pid; long ret = 0; > > > + > > + if (flags != 0) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + pid = pidfd_get_pid(pidfd, &f_flags); > > + if (IS_ERR(pid)) > > + return PTR_ERR(pid); > > + > > + task = get_pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID); > > + if (!task) { > > + ret = -ESRCH; > > + goto put_pid; > > + } > > + > > + /* > > + * If the task is dying and in the process of releasing its memory > > + * then get its mm. > > + */ > > + task_lock(task); > > + if (task_will_free_mem(task) && (task->flags & PF_KTHREAD) == 0) { > > + mm = task->mm; > > + mmget(mm); > > + } > > AFAIU, while holding the task_lock, task->mm won't change and we cannot > see a concurrent exit_mm()->mmput(). So the mm structure and the VMAs > won't go away while holding the task_lock(). I do wonder if we need the > mmget() at all here. > > Also, I wonder if it would be worth dropping the task_lock() while > reaping - to unblock anybody else wanting to lock the task. Getting a > hold of the mm and locking the mmap_lock would be sufficient I guess. Let me take a closer look at the locking sequence here and will follow up afterwards. Thanks for the review! > > > In general, looks quite good to me. > > -- > Thanks, > > David / dhildenb >
