Hello, Michal. On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 04:35:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > That doesn't matter because the detection and TIF_MEMDIE assertion are > > atomic w.r.t. oom_lock and TIF_MEMDIE essentially extends the locking > > by preventing further OOM kills. Am I missing something? > > This is true but TIF_MEMDIE releasing is not atomic wrt. the allocation > path. So the oom victim could have released memory and dropped This is splitting hairs. In vast majority of problem cases, if anything is gonna be locked up, it's gonna be locked up before releasing memory it's holding. Yet again, this is a blunt instrument to unwedge the system. It's difficult to see the point of aiming that level of granularity. > TIF_MEMDIE but the allocation path hasn't noticed that because it's passed > /* > * Go through the zonelist yet one more time, keep very high watermark > * here, this is only to catch a parallel oom killing, we must fail if > * we're still under heavy pressure. > */ > page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask | __GFP_HARDWALL, order, > ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH|ALLOC_CPUSET, ac); > > and goes on to kill another task because there is no TIF_MEMDIE > anymore. Why would this be an issue if we disallow parallel killing? > > Deadlocks from infallible allocations getting interlocked are > > different. OOM killer can't really get around that by itself but I'm > > not talking about those deadlocks but at the same time they're a lot > > less likely. It's about OOM victim trapped in a deadlock failing to > > release memory because someone else is waiting for that memory to be > > released while blocking the victim. > > I thought those would be in the allocator context - which was the > example I've provided. What kind of context do you have in mind? Yeah, sure, they'd be in the allocator context holding other resources which are being waited upon. The first case was deadlock based on purely memory starvation where NOFAIL allocations interlock with each other w/o involving other resources. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>