Re: + memcg-do-not-report-racy-no-eligible-oom-tasks.patch added to -mm tree

[Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 06:24:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 25-01-19 11:56:24, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:03:06AM -0800, akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> > > 
> > > The patch titled
> > >      Subject: memcg: do not report racy no-eligible OOM tasks
> > > has been added to the -mm tree.  Its filename is
> > >      memcg-do-not-report-racy-no-eligible-oom-tasks.patch
> > > 
> > > This patch should soon appear at
> > >     http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/memcg-do-not-report-racy-no-eligible-oom-tasks.patch
> > > and later at
> > >     http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/memcg-do-not-report-racy-no-eligible-oom-tasks.patch
> > > 
> > > Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
> > >    a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
> > >    b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
> > >    c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
> > >       reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
> > > 
> > > *** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
> > > 
> > > The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
> > > there every 3-4 working days
> > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > > Subject: memcg: do not report racy no-eligible OOM tasks
> > > 
> > > Tetsuo has reported [1] that a single process group memcg might easily
> > > swamp the log with no-eligible oom victim reports due to race between the
> > > memcg charge and oom_reaper
> > > 
> > > Thread 1		Thread2				oom_reaper
> > > try_charge		try_charge
> > > 			  mem_cgroup_out_of_memory
> > > 			    mutex_lock(oom_lock)
> > >   mem_cgroup_out_of_memory
> > >     mutex_lock(oom_lock)
> > > 			      out_of_memory
> > > 			        select_bad_process
> > > 				oom_kill_process(current)
> > > 				  wake_oom_reaper
> > > 							  oom_reap_task
> > > 							  MMF_OOM_SKIP->victim
> > > 			    mutex_unlock(oom_lock)
> > >     out_of_memory
> > >       select_bad_process # no task
> > > 
> > > If Thread1 didn't race it would bail out from try_charge and force the
> > > charge.  We can achieve the same by checking tsk_is_oom_victim inside the
> > > oom_lock and therefore close the race.
> > > 
> > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/bb2074c0-34fe-8c2c-1c7d-db71338f1e7f@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
> > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190107143802.16847-3-mhocko@kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > > Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> > > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > 
> > It looks like this problem is happening in production systems:
> > 
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/cgroups/msg21268.html
> > 
> > where the threads don't exit because they are trapped writing out the
> > oom messages to a slow console (running the reproducer from this email
> > thread triggers the oom flooding).
> > 
> > So IMO we should put this into 5.0 and add:
> 
> Please note that Tetsuo has found out that this will not work with the
> CLONE_VM without CLONE_SIGHAND cases and his http://lkml.kernel.org/r/01370f70-e1f6-ebe4-b95e-0df21a0bc15e@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
> should handle this case as well. I've only had objections to the
> changelog but other than that the patch looked sensible to me.

I see. Yeah that looks reasonable to me too.

Tetsuo, could you include the Fixes: and CC: stable in your patch?