From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw1-f70.google.com (mail-yw1-f70.google.com [209.85.161.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802596B026B for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 11:31:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yw1-f70.google.com with SMTP id z78-v6so7161802ywa.23 for ; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 08:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id u1-v6sor1546807ybo.140.2018.08.09.08.31.31 for (Google Transport Security); Thu, 09 Aug 2018 08:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 11:34:30 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: WARNING in try_charge Message-ID: <20180809153430.GA17445@cmpxchg.org> References: <0000000000005e979605729c1564@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: mhocko@kernel.org, Vladimir Davydov , Oleg Nesterov , David Rientjes , syzbot , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, Andrew Morton On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 10:57:43PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > From b1f38168f14397c7af9c122cd8207663d96e02ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Tetsuo Handa > Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 22:49:40 +0900 > Subject: [PATCH] mm, oom: task_will_free_mem(current) should retry until > memory reserve fails > > Commit 696453e66630ad45 ("mm, oom: task_will_free_mem should skip > oom_reaped tasks") changed to select next OOM victim as soon as > MMF_OOM_SKIP is set. But we don't need to select next OOM victim as > long as ALLOC_OOM allocation can succeed. And syzbot is hitting WARN(1) > caused by this race window [1]. Huh? That's the memcg path, it has nothing to do with ALLOC_OOM. > Since memcg OOM case uses forced charge if current thread is killed, > out_of_memory() can return true without selecting next OOM victim. > Therefore, this patch changes task_will_free_mem(current) to ignore > MMF_OOM_SKIP unless ALLOC_OOM allocation failed. I have no idea how the first and the second half of this paragraph go together. They're completely independent code paths.