Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim.

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>]

On Wed 17-02-16 23:39:47, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 17-02-16 22:07:31, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 17-02-16 19:30:41, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > > >From 22bd036766e70f0df38c38f3ecc226e857d20faf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> > > > > Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:30:59 +0900
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Currently, oom_scan_process_thread() returns OOM_SCAN_ABORT when there
> > > > > is a thread which is exiting. But it is possible that that thread is
> > > > > blocked at down_read(&mm->mmap_sem) in exit_mm() called from do_exit()
> > > > > whereas one of threads sharing that memory is doing a GFP_KERNEL
> > > > > allocation between down_write(&mm->mmap_sem) and up_write(&mm->mmap_sem)
> > > > > (e.g. mmap()). Under such situation, the OOM killer does not choose a
> > > > > victim, which results in silent OOM livelock problem.
> > > > 
> > > > Again, such a thread/task will have fatal_signal_pending and so have
> > > > access to memory reserves. So the text is slightly misleading imho.
> > > > Sure if the memory reserves are depleted then we will not move on but
> > > > then it is not clear whether the current patch helps either.
> > > 
> > > I don't think so.
> > > Please see http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201602151958.HCJ48972.FFOFOLMHSQVJtO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp .
> > 
> > I have missed this one. Reading...
> > 
> > Hmm, so you are not referring to OOM killed task but naturally exiting
> > thread which is racing with the OOM killer. I guess you have a point
> > there! Could you update the changelog with the above example and repost
> > please?
> > 
> Yes and I resent that patch as v2.
> 
> I think that the same problem exists for any task_will_free_mem()-based
> optimizations. Can we eliminate them because these optimized paths are not
> handled by the OOM reaper which means that we have no means other than
> "[PATCH 5/6] mm,oom: Re-enable OOM killer using timers." ?

Well, only oom_kill_process usage of task_will_free_mem might be a
problem because out_of_memory operates on the current task so it must be
in the allocation path and access to memory reserves should help it to
continue.
Wrt. oom_kill_process this will be more tricky. I guess we want to
teach oom_reaper to operate on such a task which would be a more robust
solution than removing the check altogether.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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>