From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-f199.google.com (mail-lb0-f199.google.com [209.85.217.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7A36B025E for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 02:40:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f199.google.com with SMTP id nq2so34061898lbc.3 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-f46.google.com (mail-lf0-f46.google.com. [209.85.215.46]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a2si19896050lbc.12.2016.06.21.23.40.17 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f46.google.com with SMTP id q132so61474282lfe.3 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:40:16 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: mm, oom_reaper: How to handle race with oom_killer_disable() ? Message-ID: <20160622064015.GB7520@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <201606212003.FFB35429.QtMOJFFFOLSHVO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20160621114643.GE30848@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160621132736.GF30848@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201606220032.EGD09344.VOSQOMFJOLHtFF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20160621174617.GA27527@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201606220647.GGD48936.LMtJVOOOFFQFHS@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201606220647.GGD48936.LMtJVOOOFFQFHS@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com, oleg@redhat.com, vdavydov@parallels.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, hughd@google.com, riel@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 22-06-16 06:47:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 22-06-16 00:32:29, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > Hmm, what about the following instead. It is rather a workaround than a > > > > full flaged fix but it seems much more easier and shouldn't introduce > > > > new issues. > > > > > > Yes, I think that will work. But I think below patch (marking signal_struct > > > to ignore TIF_MEMDIE instead of clearing TIF_MEMDIE from task_struct) on top of > > > current linux.git will implement no-lockup requirement. No race is possible unlike > > > "[PATCH 10/10] mm, oom: hide mm which is shared with kthread or global init". > > > > Not really. Because without the exit_oom_victim from oom_reaper you have > > no guarantee that the oom_killer_disable will ever return. I have > > mentioned that in the changelog. There is simply no guarantee the oom > > victim will ever reach exit_mm->exit_oom_victim. > > Why? Since any allocation after setting oom_killer_disabled = true will be > forced to fail, nobody will be blocked on waiting for memory allocation. Thus, > the TIF_MEMDIE tasks will eventually reach exit_mm->exit_oom_victim, won't it? What if it gets blocked waiting for an operation which cannot make any forward progress because it cannot proceed with an allocation (e.g. an open coded allocation retry loop - not that uncommon when sending a bio)? I mean if we want to guarantee a forward progress then there has to be something to clear the flag no matter in what state the oom victim is or give up on oom_killer_disable. -- 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: email@kvack.org