From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f44.google.com (mail-wr1-f44.google.com [209.85.221.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D050C3A6B81 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 19:23:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.44 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785266626; cv=none; b=LfEGNljIfVWskxc8Fp5r1qPU5KkuqrRXiFJmzuU/IOdXjEfL85e4xPaGbf5oXU4tNqF2wayvRy6JUHec7HImUyB4J+ANluOYpfVaOv+GuNyaeqC7VOsaSL66sVxTUJ8OiPMgoepWsDIK98+kpqt4N3k3e8H7/K9yTI/W0LQHc2Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785266626; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pBhHjY4lmyfN+zGiDNSUsLHi2xqfgYzXS+aNGMlJq9k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=l8TrYbazxNcRr7gR2BpjCDgEJW92sdISVAtNzrwYDEcuANH6i3wMWgmUnVDixF/MNvJzXDRsVd3UEVJEd54113qmhAiKlWCL6AF0QPovQzfZuh8o/o1AveQjOHHPZp2Cupb5twQnFWOoLfT80hGBoSbam+pCVg1e2ZDBkPqSHHg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=IK6oJ86Z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.44 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="IK6oJ86Z" Received: by mail-wr1-f44.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-4799b3f7c83so173740f8f.2 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 12:23:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=google; t=1785266623; x=1785871423; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=K8qZfjaxhGbSgiZnpnKGN1HzCLFjiwC8FeQ/0VidGnU=; b=IK6oJ86ZF9qx1GtzaORjQ2Iuhjxr1H3CHcXzxrFiKtMDuRaDwyUVvb6fb28VXLSn84 RpjgUc93e1t3Y3vEJjCKB9wWolGMT1hPuEoUBF7p0FH2OTAoOwH21b4+YLAu7kpOGx6H 9Jy1EDVImq+CwJTeciiv5G6JOCiFATmWPPDQ7/WL8LwdDMaL4w57+dgIJ/YIylCR0Fsi wzo4Ul/PrOkybMB7WfI31f9hOliD/3OPbBo49dyjswbnyGaStmrqcP7ogC5bsEOBEr1e i71CrGZH1oXxUQfweZCu2xC4xAH8s5AT6N7DcZf9DXo4RR8/e/DIXTBtx5EsGqKqqxJ4 090g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1785266623; x=1785871423; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=K8qZfjaxhGbSgiZnpnKGN1HzCLFjiwC8FeQ/0VidGnU=; b=GMTVQSjdH1EXjmpC2plbM2hKIyvH8sMlixTfj58PRKFUuTYc/ColWsguPCGwm7UjWD PgOXAxIOlQkFLMAeSoMZafFFaEpIztxHZTBviTHHwQMeOXWMqtAPh5PBiuVcSarpNOO4 Bd+0lffAYYx0WrwJVzZfOI2AjWyGHYX1ti/0pTBHFWpWnTt/1mbHrwO0UzU72kVEsYig 7451/4kjzLKSXTQC6KPDVtWVhRjU/27AZyQJGnfz3qyVfLjs/HTNR1bxxdePqrgkqxcW DY5RUoNHXNxq/hYSl7QgDHMy/tIKttAKcSg162YKuU1IEVOPhLfGTDQRUcd5hqj7d2OT 8ffw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AHgh+RpmiQQc2qjoIg1reP+vVVgeRBkUcqlUxg9qh/wbDC37ZAjlCLWPF38kD1IlVkg+e+/c2WTgocBosCdfOHw=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwU/Hoyd0dIvJ168/3JWM/Egh2RRMlMF9uTmtuMD3CbaqsamFbG TONJhHtdI+LJborXMmIJ3lnEhXteypIeuPHL/Tql4JUfRH6U/bU2EQM/C2U3yNLa27c= X-Gm-Gg: AR+sD12bU3lhja0Kdg2/uOYUoAUfTL5doYPjCAfhqGKaAaN9C5Su8XCgE7+BbjtdpDz QOWhg4YJRM4kLKcFPMLESUWmev04IRwELt7bYp1EaXoImHc5GxLId1I6TxSQJrslUa/LeyMPXI3 3hBpXHvEEeFPRUSUKgHP9a0aOFODGgETmoNUNVzR3WIswK4ct/C0/9EV/4PlegFXLCFJLK3P7wW XQplRM+zhOlVaUpbsonIVD2+gNY0wbd4MzAEgPnS2yWBTUIgVDwoYiD1XRZwcZB45ikG57AN2Q7 tChxNX+nwLi9tHa4W5JnVff5Z1LHNMm3mglthvyafOyqVSj07f0Cmh+FcESQu5xfbv047zdkr99 uZt/vI/hmZs1boekmqkqLxPndpgiBntchzQSqDpYIbIPnE4T5mu0/gtvzNZ3rJ0xast2eUoKB6z b2nNqfuZPHXHD59NABkP+wYmre/HBQp12GFM+T6JSf1TMaaDYH3I2HY2+05cxHqQ9IBtIG X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5849:0:b0:47f:8f8f:e494 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-47fb1ec88d4mr4116620f8f.2.1785266622998; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 12:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (109-81-83-7.rct.o2.cz. [109.81.83.7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-47fb6b189fbsm1268107f8f.25.2026.07.28.12.23.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 28 Jul 2026 12:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 21:23:41 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Shakeel Butt Cc: Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Muchun Song , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Suren Baghdasaryan , Usama Arif , Peter Zijlstra , Darren Hart , Davidlohr Bueso , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Almeida , "Liam R . Howlett" , Yosry Ahmed , Rik van Riel , Nhat Pham , Meta kernel team , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Robust futex causing memcg OOM storm on exit Message-ID: References: <20260723001908.4046643-1-shakeel.butt@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue 28-07-26 09:55:21, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 09:27:39AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 27-07-26 13:48:58, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 08:38:37AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 04:36:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Wed 22-07-26 17:19:07, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > TBH I am not entirely happy about this approach. It effectivelly reverts > > > > > a75ffa26122b ("memcg, oom: do not bypass oom killer for dying tasks"). > > > > > It just makes it lockless. Assumption that a dying task will do so > > > > > quickly and with bounded resources has turned wrong on several > > > > > occasions. > > > > > > > > That's why I kept it as RFC :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand I do undestand the contention issues and I can imagine > > > > > that the existing solution doesn't really work well for huge thread > > > > > groups that all end up lining up on the oom_lock just to learn there is > > > > > nothing really killable anymore because they are the oom victim... > > > > > > > > > > Would it be just safer to bail out only for oom victim threads. This > > > > > would narrow down potential runaways for oom victims which should be > > > > > more limited than any killed/exiting task. It would also give the oom > > > > > killer/reaper chance to work. WDYT? > > > > > > > > I will give the following patch a try with the reproducer I have. I am still > > > > improving the reproducer as I am still not able to recreate multi hour slowdown > > > > yet. I will report back once I have some results. > > > > > > > > > > I have some results with the reproducer I (AI) wrote. > > > > > > Setup: 20k threads, each with its robust_list head on its own page in a > > > large anon region pushed into a zswap pool (writeback off, so it's > > > unreclaimable and pins the memcg at the limit). On the OOM-group-kill > > > every thread faults that page in futex_cleanup() -> do_swap_page() -> > > > swapin charge -> memcg OOM. A separate thread holds mmap_lock for write > > > in a loop so the oom_reaper can't reap the pool -- matching the host, > > > where the reaper was blocked and the memcg never fell below the limit. > > > > > > I tested on next-20260726 as baseline and then tested your suggestion over it. > > > For baseline ~48k no-victim OOM invocations serialized on oom_lock; ~40s to > > > drain the 20k threads in a VM (hours on the host, where each invocation > > > was a dump_header over netconsole). With the patch the dying tasks stop > > > entering out_of_memory and the storm is gone. > > > > > > With the following suggestion, the threads of dying tasks stop entering > > > out_of_memory but the exit time doubled as each thread has to decompress the > > > page from zswap. > > > > > > if (tsk_is_oom_victim(current)) > > > goto force; > > > > > > I also tested by replacing goto force with goto nomem and the exit time halved > > > i.e. ~20 seconds. Looking deeper it seems like each thread is still going > > > through the reclaim loops. > > > > > > Just for testing purpose I moved this check along with goto nomem just before > > > the reclaim fuction i.e. try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() and the exit time falls > > > below 1 second. I think what we need is to detect early that the cgroup is > > > unreclaimable and the threads of exiting/reaped process should just return with > > > enomem. > > > > Do you mean, something like this? > > --- > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > > index 6dc4888a90f3..66f1eebf8c22 100644 > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > > @@ -2648,6 +2648,18 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask, > > if (!gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp_mask)) > > goto nomem; > > > > + /* > > + * OOM victim still needs to charge memory to exit. OOM reaper should > > + * help but it might fail on mmap_lock contention. If the victim is a > > + * large thread group then all exiting threads might compete on oom_lock > > + * just to learn that there is nothing really killable anymore. Bail > > + * out early and fail the charge to expedite their exit. They are > > + * considered fully reclaimed by the oom reaper and they shouldn't contribute > > + * further charges. > > + */ > > + if (tsk_is_oom_victim(current) && mm_flags_test(current->signal->oom_mm)) > > I simply had tsk_is_oom_victim(current) check here. I was hoping for a more specific treatment. > I assume you want > MMF_OOM_REAP_QUEUED in the mm_flags_test() above. Do you want me to test with > this additional mm_flags_test() as well? Sorry I meant MMF_OOM_SKIP there. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs