Re: [PATCH v2 06/23] mm: introduce BPF struct ops for OOM handling

Roman Gushchin
2025-11-02T21:36:36Z

Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes:

> On Mon 27-10-25 16:17:09, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> Introduce a bpf struct ops for implementing custom OOM handling
>> policies.
>>
>> It's possible to load one bpf_oom_ops for the system and one
>> bpf_oom_ops for every memory cgroup. In case of a memcg OOM, the
>> cgroup tree is traversed from the OOM'ing memcg up to the root and
>> corresponding BPF OOM handlers are executed until some memory is
>> freed. If no memory is freed, the kernel OOM killer is invoked.
>
> Do you have any usecase in mind where parent memcg oom handler decides
> to not kill or cannot kill anything and hand over upwards in the
> hierarchy?

I believe that in most cases bpf handlers will handle ooms themselves,
but because strictly speaking I don't have control over what bpf
programs do or do not, the kernel should provide the fallback mechanism.
This is a common practice with bpf, e.g. sched_ext falls back to
CFS/EEVDF in case something is wrong.

Specifically to OOM case, I believe someone might want to use bpf
programs just for monitoring/collecting some information, without
trying to actually free some memory.

>> The struct ops provides the bpf_handle_out_of_memory() callback,
>> which expected to return 1 if it was able to free some memory and 0
>> otherwise. If 1 is returned, the kernel also checks the bpf_memory_freed
>> field of the oom_control structure, which is expected to be set by
>> kfuncs suitable for releasing memory. If both are set, OOM is
>> considered handled, otherwise the next OOM handler in the chain
>> (e.g. BPF OOM attached to the parent cgroup or the in-kernel OOM
>> killer) is executed.
>
> Could you explain why do we need both? Why is not bpf_memory_freed
> return value sufficient?

Strictly speaking, bpf_memory_freed should be enough, but because
bpf programs have to return an int and there is no additional cost
to add this option (pass to next or in-kernel oom handler), I thought
it's not a bad idea. If you feel strongly otherwise, I can ignore
the return value on rely on bpf_memory_freed only.

>
>> The bpf_handle_out_of_memory() callback program is sleepable to enable
>> using iterators, e.g. cgroup iterators. The callback receives struct
>> oom_control as an argument, so it can determine the scope of the OOM
>> event: if this is a memcg-wide or system-wide OOM.
>
> This could be tricky because it might introduce a subtle and hard to
> debug lock dependency chain. lock(a); allocation() -> oom -> lock(a).
> Sleepable locks should be only allowed in trylock mode.

Agree, but it's achieved by controlling the context where oom can be
declared (e.g. in bpf_psi case it's done from a work context).

>
>> The callback is executed just before the kernel victim task selection
>> algorithm, so all heuristics and sysctls like panic on oom,
>> sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task and sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task
>> are respected.
>
> I guess you meant to say and sysctl_panic_on_oom.

Yep, fixed.
>
>> BPF OOM struct ops provides the handle_cgroup_offline() callback
>> which is good for releasing struct ops if the corresponding cgroup
>> is gone.
>
> What kind of synchronization is expected between handle_cgroup_offline
> and bpf_handle_out_of_memory?

You mean from a user's perspective? E.g. can these two callbacks run in
parallel? Currently yes, but it's a good question, I haven't thought
about it, maybe it's better to synchronize them.
Internally both rely on srcu to pin bpf_oom_ops in memory.

>
>> The struct ops also has the name field, which allows to define a
>> custom name for the implemented policy. It's printed in the OOM report
>> in the oom_policy=<policy> format. "default" is printed if bpf is not
>> used or policy name is not specified.
>
> oom_handler seems like a better fit but nothing I would insist on. Also
> I would just print it if there is an actual handler so that existing
> users who do not use bpf oom killers do not need to change their
> parsers.

Sure, works for me too.

>
> Other than that this looks reasonable to me.

Sound great, thank you for taking a look!