Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?

[Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com>]

On 09/19/15 15:24, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>> +
>> +static void oom_unmap_func(struct work_struct *work)
>> +{
>> +       struct mm_struct *mm = xchg(&oom_unmap_mm, NULL);
>> +
>> +       if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&mm->mm_users))
>> +               return;
>> +
>> +       // If this is not safe we can do use_mm() + unuse_mm()
>> +       down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> I don't think this is safe.
>
> What makes you sure that we might not deadlock on the mmap_sem here?
> For all we know, the process that is going out of memory is in the
> middle of a mmap(), and already holds the mmap_sem for writing. No?

Potentially stupid question that others may be asking: Is it legal to 
return EINTR from mmap() to let a SIGKILL from the OOM handler punch the 
task out of the kernel and back to userspace?

(sorry for the dupe btw, new email client snuck in html and I got bounced)

> So at the very least that needs to be a trylock, I think. And I'm not
> sure zap_page_range() is ok with the mmap_sem only held for reading.
> Normally our rule is that you can *populate* the page tables
> concurrently, but you can't tear the down.
>
>                  Linus
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>