On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:56 PM Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> [220519 17:33]:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 1:22 PM Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > * Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> [220516 03:56]:
> > > > The primary reason to invoke the oom reaper from the exit_mmap path used
> > > > to be a prevention of an excessive oom killing if the oom victim exit
> > > > races with the oom reaper (see [1] for more details). The invocation has
> > > > moved around since then because of the interaction with the munlock
> > > > logic but the underlying reason has remained the same (see [2]).
> > > >
> > > > Munlock code is no longer a problem since [3] and there shouldn't be
> > > > any blocking operation before the memory is unmapped by exit_mmap so
> > > > the oom reaper invocation can be dropped. The unmapping part can be done
> > > > with the non-exclusive mmap_sem and the exclusive one is only required
> > > > when page tables are freed.
> > > >
> > > > Remove the oom_reaper from exit_mmap which will make the code easier to
> > > > read. This is really unlikely to make any observable difference although
> > > > some microbenchmarks could benefit from one less branch that needs to be
> > > > evaluated even though it almost never is true.
> > > >
> > > > [1] 212925802454 ("mm: oom: let oom_reap_task and exit_mmap run concurrently")
> > > > [2] 27ae357fa82b ("mm, oom: fix concurrent munlock and oom reaper unmap, v3")
> > > > [3] a213e5cf71cb ("mm/munlock: delete munlock_vma_pages_all(), allow oomreap")
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/oom.h | 2 --
> > > > mm/mmap.c | 31 ++++++++++++-------------------
> > > > mm/oom_kill.c | 2 +-
> > > > 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h
> > > > index 2db9a1432511..6cdf0772dbae 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/oom.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/oom.h
> > > > @@ -106,8 +106,6 @@ static inline vm_fault_t check_stable_address_space(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > > -
> > > > long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p,
> > > > unsigned long totalpages);
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> > > > index 313b57d55a63..ded42150e706 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/mmap.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> > > > @@ -3105,30 +3105,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > > /* mm's last user has gone, and its about to be pulled down */
> > > > mmu_notifier_release(mm);
> > > >
> > > > - if (unlikely(mm_is_oom_victim(mm))) {
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * Manually reap the mm to free as much memory as possible.
> > > > - * Then, as the oom reaper does, set MMF_OOM_SKIP to disregard
> > > > - * this mm from further consideration. Taking mm->mmap_lock for
> > > > - * write after setting MMF_OOM_SKIP will guarantee that the oom
> > > > - * reaper will not run on this mm again after mmap_lock is
> > > > - * dropped.
> > > > - *
> > > > - * Nothing can be holding mm->mmap_lock here and the above call
> > > > - * to mmu_notifier_release(mm) ensures mmu notifier callbacks in
> > > > - * __oom_reap_task_mm() will not block.
> > > > - */
> > > > - (void)__oom_reap_task_mm(mm);
> > > > - set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags);
> > > > - }
> > > > -
> > > > - mmap_write_lock(mm);
> > > > + mmap_read_lock(mm);
> > > > arch_exit_mmap(mm);
> > >
> > > arch_exit_mmap() was called under the write lock before, is it safe to
> > > call it under the read lock?
> >
> > Ah, good catch. I missed at least one call chain which I believe would
> > require arch_exit_mmap() to be called under write lock:
> >
> > arch_exit_mmap
> > ldt_arch_exit_mmap
> > free_ldt_pgtables
> > free_pgd_range
> >
> > I'll need to check whether arch_exit_mmap() has to be called before
> > unmap_vmas(). If not, we could move it further down when we hold the
> > write lock.
> > Andrew, please remove this patchset from your tree for now until I fix this.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > vma = mm->mmap;
> > > > if (!vma) {
> > > > /* Can happen if dup_mmap() received an OOM */
> > > > - mmap_write_unlock(mm);
> > > > + mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > @@ -3138,6 +3121,16 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > > /* update_hiwater_rss(mm) here? but nobody should be looking */
> > > > /* Use -1 here to ensure all VMAs in the mm are unmapped */
> > > > unmap_vmas(&tlb, vma, 0, -1);
> > > > + mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Set MMF_OOM_SKIP to hide this task from the oom killer/reaper
> > > > + * because the memory has been already freed. Do not bother checking
> > > > + * mm_is_oom_victim because setting a bit unconditionally is cheaper.
> > > > + */
> > > > + set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags);
> > > > +
> > > > + mmap_write_lock(mm);
> > >
> > > Is there a race here? We had a VMA but after the read lock was dropped,
> > > could the oom killer cause the VMA to be invalidated? I don't think so
> > > but the comment above about dup_mmap() receiving an OOM makes me
> > > question it. The code before kept the write lock from when the VMA was
> > > found until the end of the mm edits - and it had the check for !vma
> > > within the block itself. We are also hiding it from the oom killer
> > > outside the read lock so it is possible for oom to find it in that
> > > window, right?
> >
> > When I was trying to understand that comment and looked into
> > dup_mmap() code, my conclusion was that this check was there to
> > protect us from the case when dup_mmap() gets interrupted and leaves
> > mm->mmap=NULL. So, in a sense it was not really a race with OOM killer
> > but an interrupted dup_mmap() case. So, once we checked it above we
> > don't need to recheck again under write lock. When I asked Michal
> > about this he was in agreement but it's possible we overlooked some
> > corner case. If so, please let me know and I can add this check here.
>
> I didn't see how it was a problem either, neither of the other entry
> points modify the vma linked list/tree.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Could we just unconditionally set the skip bit before taking a write
> > > lock for the duration of the exit? I'm probably missing your reason for
> > > doing it this way.
> >
> > That's what I'm doing - unconditionally setting MMF_OOM_SKIP before
> > taking the write lock. Did I miss something?
>
> Sorry, I meant to type "before the read lock". I think you answered
> this in the other thread though. I think you want the oom killer and
> process_mrelease to be able to run in parallel to the exiting of the
> task? If so, is it worth all tasks taking the read lock and then
> dropping it to allow this rare case?
In the usual case the lock should be uncontended, so should not be an
issue I think.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > free_pgtables(&tlb, vma, FIRST_USER_ADDRESS, USER_PGTABLES_CEILING);
> > > > tlb_finish_mmu(&tlb);
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > index 49d7df39b02d..36355b162727 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > @@ -509,7 +509,7 @@ static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(oom_reaper_wait);
> > > > static struct task_struct *oom_reaper_list;
> > > > static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(oom_reaper_lock);
> > > >
> > > > -bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > > +static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > > {
> > > > struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > bool ret = true;
> > > > --
> > > > 2.36.0.550.gb090851708-goog
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.
> > >
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.
>
