On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 13:33 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 26-08-21 22:01:49, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Changeset f56ce412a59d ("mm: memcontrol: fix occasional OOMs due to
> > proportional memory.low reclaim") introduced a divide by zero
> > corner
> > case when oomd is being used in combination with cgroup memory.low
> > protection.
> >
> > When oomd decides to kill a cgroup, it will force the cgroup memory
> > to be reclaimed after killing the tasks, by writing to the
> > memory.max
> > file for that cgroup, forcing the remaining page cache and
> > reclaimable
> > slab to be reclaimed down to zero.
> >
> > Previously, on cgroups with some memory.low protection that would
> > result
> > in the memory being reclaimed down to the memory.low limit, or
> > likely not
> > at all, having the page cache reclaimed asynchronously later.
> >
> > With f56ce412a59d the oomd write to memory.max tries to reclaim all
> > the
> > way down to zero, which may race with another reclaimer, to the
> > point of
> > ending up with the divide by zero below.
> >
> > This patch implements the obvious fix.
>
> I must be missing something but how can cgroup_size be ever 0 when it
> is
> max(cgroup_size, protection) and protection != 0?
Going into the condition we use if (low || min), where
it is possible for low > 0 && min == 0.
Inside the conditional, we can end up testing against
min.
--
All Rights Reversed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
