On Mon 29-07-13 10:55:29, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 04:12:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 26-07-13 17:28:09, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 04:43:10PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Thu 25-07-13 18:25:38, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > > @@ -2189,31 +2191,20 @@ static void memcg_oom_recover(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > - * try to call OOM killer. returns false if we should exit memory-reclaim loop.
> > > > > + * try to call OOM killer
> > > > > */
> > > > > -static bool mem_cgroup_handle_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t mask,
> > > > > - int order)
> > > > > +static void mem_cgroup_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t mask, int order)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - struct oom_wait_info owait;
> > > > > - bool locked, need_to_kill;
> > > > > + bool locked, need_to_kill = true;
> > > > >
> > > > > - owait.memcg = memcg;
> > > > > - owait.wait.flags = 0;
> > > > > - owait.wait.func = memcg_oom_wake_function;
> > > > > - owait.wait.private = current;
> > > > > - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&owait.wait.task_list);
> > > > > - need_to_kill = true;
> > > > > - mem_cgroup_mark_under_oom(memcg);
> > > >
> > > > You are marking memcg under_oom only for the sleepers. So if we have
> > > > no sleepers then the memcg will never report it is under oom which
> > > > is a behavior change. On the other hand who-ever relies on under_oom
> > > > under such conditions (it would basically mean a busy loop reading
> > > > memory.oom_control) would be racy anyway so it is questionable it
> > > > matters at all. At least now when we do not have any active notification
> > > > that under_oom has changed.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, this shouldn't be a part of this patch so if you want it because
> > > > it saves a pointless hierarchy traversal then make it a separate patch
> > > > with explanation why the new behavior is still OK.
> > >
> > > This made me think again about how the locking and waking in there
> > > works and I found a bug in this patch.
> > >
> > > Basically, we have an open-coded sleeping lock in there and it's all
> > > obfuscated by having way too much stuffed into the memcg_oom_lock
> > > section.
> > >
> > > Removing all the clutter, it becomes clear that I can't remove that
> > > (undocumented) final wakeup at the end of the function. As with any
> > > lock, a contender has to be woken up after unlock. We can't rely on
> > > the lock holder's OOM kill to trigger uncharges and wakeups, because a
> > > contender for the OOM lock could show up after the OOM kill but before
> > > the lock is released. If there weren't any more wakeups, the
> > > contender would sleep indefinitely.
> >
> > I have checked that path again and I still do not see how wakeup_oom
> > helps here. What prevents us from the following race then?
> >
> > spin_lock(&memcg_oom_lock)
> > locked = mem_cgroup_oom_lock(memcg) # true
> > spin_unlock(&memcg_oom_lock)
>
> prepare_to_wait()
For some reason that one disappeared from my screen ;)
> > spin_lock(&memcg_oom_lock)
> > locked = mem_cgroup_oom_lock(memcg) # false
> > spin_unlock(&memcg_oom_lock)
> > <resched>
> > mem_cgroup_out_of_memory()
> > <uncharge & memcg_oom_recover>
> > spin_lock(&memcg_oom_lock)
> > mem_cgroup_oom_unlock(memcg)
> > memcg_wakeup_oom(memcg)
> > schedule()
> > spin_unlock(&memcg_oom_lock)
> > mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(memcg)
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>