Linux-mm Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: fix oom_unkillable_task for memcg OOMs
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 18:17:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190617161702.GE1492@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190617155954.155791-1-shakeelb@google.com>

On Mon 17-06-19 08:59:54, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> Currently oom_unkillable_task() checks mems_allowed even for memcg OOMs
> which does not make sense as memcg OOMs can not be triggered due to
> numa constraints. Fixing that.
> 
> Also if memcg is given, oom_unkillable_task() will check the task's
> memcg membership as well to detect oom killability. However all the
> memcg related code paths leading to oom_unkillable_task(), other than
> dump_tasks(), come through mem_cgroup_scan_tasks() which traverses
> tasks through memcgs. Once dump_tasks() is converted to use
> mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(), there is no need to do memcg membership check
> in oom_unkillable_task().

I think this patch just does too much in one go. Could you split out
the dump_tasks part and the oom_unkillable_task parts into two patches
please? It should be slightly easier to review.

[...]
> +static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p, struct oom_control *oc)
>  {
>  	if (is_global_init(p))
>  		return true;
>  	if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
>  		return true;
> +	if (!oc)
> +		return false;

Bah, this is just too ugly. AFAICS this is only because oom_score still
uses oom_unkillable_task which is kinda dubious, no? While you are
touching this code, can we remove this part as well? I would be really
surprised if any code really depends on ineligible tasks reporting 0
oom_score.

Other than that it looks reasonable to me from a quick glance but I have
to look more carefuly.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


  reply	other threads:[~2019-06-17 16:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-17 15:59 [PATCH] mm, oom: fix oom_unkillable_task for memcg OOMs Shakeel Butt
2019-06-17 16:17 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2019-06-17 16:48   ` Shakeel Butt

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=20190617161702.GE1492@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=guro@fb.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --cc=shakeelb@google.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox