From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Ye Liu <ye.liu@linux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/oom_kill: simplify remaining RCU sections with scoped_guard(rcu)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 13:40:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <an2tQ90mloFCU9T0@tiehlicka> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260813092933.562028-1-ye.liu@linux.dev>
On Thu 13-08-26 17:29:32, Ye Liu wrote:
> From: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>
>
> Replace the remaining manual rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pairs
> in oom_cpuset_eligible(), select_bad_process(), dump_tasks(),
> task_will_free_mem(), and __oom_kill_process() with scoped_guard(rcu)
> for consistency and simpler control flow. scoped_guard(rcu) limits
> the RCU critical section to the loop body rather than the entire
> remaining function scope, making the protected region explicit and
> safer for future changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>
It almost looks like for_each_thread and for_each_process could gain an
rcu varian that would do the rcu thing internally. Have you considered
that? I am pretty sure there will be more cases like these.
Anyway
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Thanks
> ---
> v2:
> - Use scoped_guard instead of guard.
> - Link:https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260813032634.344946-1-ye.liu@linux.dev/
>
> mm/oom_kill.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 5f372f6e26fa..0e8982e5be51 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -94,27 +94,27 @@ static bool oom_cpuset_eligible(struct task_struct *start,
> bool ret = false;
> const nodemask_t *mask = oc->nodemask;
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - for_each_thread(start, tsk) {
> - if (mask) {
> - /*
> - * If this is a mempolicy constrained oom, tsk's
> - * cpuset is irrelevant. Only return true if its
> - * mempolicy intersects current, otherwise it may be
> - * needlessly killed.
> - */
> - ret = mempolicy_in_oom_domain(tsk, mask);
> - } else {
> - /*
> - * This is not a mempolicy constrained oom, so only
> - * check the mems of tsk's cpuset.
> - */
> - ret = cpuset_mems_allowed_intersects(current, tsk);
> + scoped_guard(rcu) {
> + for_each_thread(start, tsk) {
> + if (mask) {
> + /*
> + * If this is a mempolicy constrained oom, tsk's
> + * cpuset is irrelevant. Only return true if its
> + * mempolicy intersects current, otherwise it may be
> + * needlessly killed.
> + */
> + ret = mempolicy_in_oom_domain(tsk, mask);
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * This is not a mempolicy constrained oom, so only
> + * check the mems of tsk's cpuset.
> + */
> + ret = cpuset_mems_allowed_intersects(current, tsk);
> + }
> + if (ret)
> + break;
> }
> - if (ret)
> - break;
> }
> - rcu_read_unlock();
>
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -368,11 +368,11 @@ static void select_bad_process(struct oom_control *oc)
> else {
> struct task_struct *p;
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - for_each_process(p)
> - if (oom_evaluate_task(p, oc))
> - break;
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> + scoped_guard(rcu) {
> + for_each_process(p)
> + if (oom_evaluate_task(p, oc))
> + break;
> + }
> }
> }
>
> @@ -430,14 +430,14 @@ static void dump_tasks(struct oom_control *oc)
> struct task_struct *p;
> int i = 0;
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - for_each_process(p) {
> - /* Avoid potential softlockup warning */
> - if ((++i & 1023) == 0)
> - touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> - dump_task(p, oc);
> + scoped_guard(rcu) {
> + for_each_process(p) {
> + /* Avoid potential softlockup warning */
> + if ((++i & 1023) == 0)
> + touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> + dump_task(p, oc);
> + }
> }
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> }
> }
>
> @@ -894,17 +894,17 @@ static bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
> * are dying as well to make sure that a) nobody pins its mm and
> * b) the task is also reapable by the oom reaper.
> */
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - for_each_process(p) {
> - if (!process_shares_mm(p, mm))
> - continue;
> - if (same_thread_group(task, p))
> - continue;
> - ret = __task_will_free_mem(p);
> - if (!ret)
> - break;
> + scoped_guard(rcu) {
> + for_each_process(p) {
> + if (!process_shares_mm(p, mm))
> + continue;
> + if (same_thread_group(task, p))
> + continue;
> + ret = __task_will_free_mem(p);
> + if (!ret)
> + break;
> + }
> }
> - rcu_read_unlock();
>
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -960,29 +960,29 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim, const char *message)
> * That thread will now get access to memory reserves since it has a
> * pending fatal signal.
> */
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - for_each_process(p) {
> - if (!process_shares_mm(p, mm))
> - continue;
> - if (same_thread_group(p, victim))
> - continue;
> - if (is_global_init(p)) {
> - can_oom_reap = false;
> - mm_flags_set(MMF_OOM_SKIP, mm);
> - pr_info("oom killer %d (%s) has mm pinned by %d (%s)\n",
> - task_pid_nr(victim), victim->comm,
> - task_pid_nr(p), p->comm);
> - continue;
> + scoped_guard(rcu) {
> + for_each_process(p) {
> + if (!process_shares_mm(p, mm))
> + continue;
> + if (same_thread_group(p, victim))
> + continue;
> + if (is_global_init(p)) {
> + can_oom_reap = false;
> + mm_flags_set(MMF_OOM_SKIP, mm);
> + pr_info("oom killer %d (%s) has mm pinned by %d (%s)\n",
> + task_pid_nr(victim), victim->comm,
> + task_pid_nr(p), p->comm);
> + continue;
> + }
> + /*
> + * No kthread_use_mm() user needs to read from the userspace so
> + * we are ok to reap it.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> + continue;
> + do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_PRIV, p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> }
> - /*
> - * No kthread_use_mm() user needs to read from the userspace so
> - * we are ok to reap it.
> - */
> - if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> - continue;
> - do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_PRIV, p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> }
> - rcu_read_unlock();
>
> if (can_oom_reap)
> queue_oom_reaper(victim);
> --
> 2.25.1
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-13 11:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-13 9:29 [PATCH v2] mm/oom_kill: simplify remaining RCU sections with scoped_guard(rcu) Ye Liu
2026-08-13 11:40 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=an2tQ90mloFCU9T0@tiehlicka \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liuye@kylinos.cn \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=ye.liu@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.