From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FD8EC53219 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 21:57:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id DC0136B007B; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 17:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D943B6B008A; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 17:57:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C5E946B008C; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 17:57:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E896B007B for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 17:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (lb01a-stub [10.200.18.249]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0929F14050C for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 21:57:55 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 85039548510.11.D4758EB Received: from out-188.mta0.migadu.com (out-188.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.188]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56EC380008 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 21:57:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=ZPVRQLU4; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeel.butt@linux.dev designates 91.218.175.188 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeel.butt@linux.dev; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1785275873; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=Vf3Bnkx46W9gMZvdRYmVghSOeclZTGz/xxcx9HYGmF0=; b=mr0CJZFHgnKrKFE9f+8ig1NfPwuppfxDQL+R8uH4265zJK2P76amVpCUUcG/7STCE24imS TZqQenIeEAEMwUeHz3jAj1GOdUQaLDgwpVDru0ym0GfZ6r0c452m3SX+vcmx1vaBCs9CMI BPqw6PpFEaEmyFfNLmQgAPYZAJB8S3I= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=ZPVRQLU4; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeel.butt@linux.dev designates 91.218.175.188 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeel.butt@linux.dev; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; cv=none; t=1785275873; b=Y0HtGLHuhKAwJIF0m76owgzlUmOS/G6672Xc3En6uZelgkHvPGr+HW1+sH9B4ODlinwMIy 8fzwKbG9Egv/QFY1WkpMo7+mYDLWu1TcDomgPXFIbGX2Xtqha1ZbQdgx1EvYckOkJ/hF0E tis9zMGtLsL9b8Ll3mYADQxkBQK5Bnw= Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 14:57:41 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1785275867; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Vf3Bnkx46W9gMZvdRYmVghSOeclZTGz/xxcx9HYGmF0=; b=ZPVRQLU46Zs8g4/juBipXjOm8G8+oEFx+Hz3pC+IdPNGyI5azPRp+fkX+PB8bq1FIN5T2n a/r8idt2v53wm7MDwKmiXSP7tBvlgu9ttPHuo/WNEBsTyz+ZG1hS8rJ50q53fnkTPf3Qpc LgyX2IAl/G6hm3g3QcacFD4QW9QiWfc= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Shakeel Butt To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Muchun Song , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Suren Baghdasaryan , Usama Arif , Peter Zijlstra , Darren Hart , Davidlohr Bueso , =?utf-8?B?QW5kcsOp?= Almeida , "Liam R . Howlett" , Yosry Ahmed , Rik van Riel , Nhat Pham , Meta kernel team , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Robust futex causing memcg OOM storm on exit Message-ID: References: <20260723001908.4046643-1-shakeel.butt@linux.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 56EC380008 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: rgzr3je6fai96meq6wtf1tduuaj4s7ii X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-HE-Tag: 1785275871-260128 X-HE-Meta: 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 BKGm5w8E 1QPGC5ErUflOTQV988LaeqTZIkqY5Rz0r2bFybCbUeAKSPulgW1lJUUydNz5UEQrijq0bfjkqMktyjCupuyYkP/LOHdZrDunRvy0aCUtp1Z+aNPPcGkZupsq2lOjLxVMG/9VZbm9pG9CrlJ7l8MnTnD81l+4iX7ulrPjdxlkCrmMywDDMbVq2OizRV7VVVAJO4xDd+3B9eo7NsFDUeTqwrWYyBfUyZRsJGC3wiYlhDdYz6N0= Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 28-07-26 09:55:21, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 09:27:39AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 27-07-26 13:48:58, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 08:38:37AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 04:36:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > On Wed 22-07-26 17:19:07, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TBH I am not entirely happy about this approach. It effectivelly reverts > > > > > > a75ffa26122b ("memcg, oom: do not bypass oom killer for dying tasks"). > > > > > > It just makes it lockless. Assumption that a dying task will do so > > > > > > quickly and with bounded resources has turned wrong on several > > > > > > occasions. > > > > > > > > > > That's why I kept it as RFC :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand I do undestand the contention issues and I can imagine > > > > > > that the existing solution doesn't really work well for huge thread > > > > > > groups that all end up lining up on the oom_lock just to learn there is > > > > > > nothing really killable anymore because they are the oom victim... > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be just safer to bail out only for oom victim threads. This > > > > > > would narrow down potential runaways for oom victims which should be > > > > > > more limited than any killed/exiting task. It would also give the oom > > > > > > killer/reaper chance to work. WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > I will give the following patch a try with the reproducer I have. I am still > > > > > improving the reproducer as I am still not able to recreate multi hour slowdown > > > > > yet. I will report back once I have some results. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some results with the reproducer I (AI) wrote. > > > > > > > > Setup: 20k threads, each with its robust_list head on its own page in a > > > > large anon region pushed into a zswap pool (writeback off, so it's > > > > unreclaimable and pins the memcg at the limit). On the OOM-group-kill > > > > every thread faults that page in futex_cleanup() -> do_swap_page() -> > > > > swapin charge -> memcg OOM. A separate thread holds mmap_lock for write > > > > in a loop so the oom_reaper can't reap the pool -- matching the host, > > > > where the reaper was blocked and the memcg never fell below the limit. > > > > > > > > I tested on next-20260726 as baseline and then tested your suggestion over it. > > > > For baseline ~48k no-victim OOM invocations serialized on oom_lock; ~40s to > > > > drain the 20k threads in a VM (hours on the host, where each invocation > > > > was a dump_header over netconsole). With the patch the dying tasks stop > > > > entering out_of_memory and the storm is gone. > > > > > > > > With the following suggestion, the threads of dying tasks stop entering > > > > out_of_memory but the exit time doubled as each thread has to decompress the > > > > page from zswap. > > > > > > > > if (tsk_is_oom_victim(current)) > > > > goto force; > > > > > > > > I also tested by replacing goto force with goto nomem and the exit time halved > > > > i.e. ~20 seconds. Looking deeper it seems like each thread is still going > > > > through the reclaim loops. > > > > > > > > Just for testing purpose I moved this check along with goto nomem just before > > > > the reclaim fuction i.e. try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() and the exit time falls > > > > below 1 second. I think what we need is to detect early that the cgroup is > > > > unreclaimable and the threads of exiting/reaped process should just return with > > > > enomem. > > > > > > Do you mean, something like this? > > > --- > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > > > index 6dc4888a90f3..66f1eebf8c22 100644 > > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > > > @@ -2648,6 +2648,18 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask, > > > if (!gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp_mask)) > > > goto nomem; > > > > > > + /* > > > + * OOM victim still needs to charge memory to exit. OOM reaper should > > > + * help but it might fail on mmap_lock contention. If the victim is a > > > + * large thread group then all exiting threads might compete on oom_lock > > > + * just to learn that there is nothing really killable anymore. Bail > > > + * out early and fail the charge to expedite their exit. They are > > > + * considered fully reclaimed by the oom reaper and they shouldn't contribute > > > + * further charges. > > > + */ > > > + if (tsk_is_oom_victim(current) && mm_flags_test(current->signal->oom_mm)) > > > > I simply had tsk_is_oom_victim(current) check here. > > I was hoping for a more specific treatment. > > > I assume you want > > MMF_OOM_REAP_QUEUED in the mm_flags_test() above. Do you want me to test with > > this additional mm_flags_test() as well? > > Sorry I meant MMF_OOM_SKIP there. Here are the results with the reproducer I have. Ran the test 5 times and showing avg and std below: Baseline (next-20260726) 36.47 ± 0.78 s early nomem (tsk_is_oom_victim + MMF_OOM_SKIP) 20.83 ± 4.19 s early nomem (tsk_is_oom_victim) 0.59 ± 0.22 s Since MMF_OOM_SKIP is set after multiple retries by the oom_reaper the result in between baseline and simple tsk_is_oom_victim check makes sense. I think we can proceed with the early nomem (tsk_is_oom_victim + MMF_OOM_SKIP) change as it is more conservative unless you have concerns. Overall I want to deploy this in prod sooner to see if this specific issues is resolved or we catch something else.