From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Ye Liu <ye.liu@linux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/oom_kill: simplify remaining RCU sections with scoped_guard(rcu)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 13:40:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <an2tQ90mloFCU9T0@tiehlicka> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260813092933.562028-1-ye.liu@linux.dev>
On Thu 13-08-26 17:29:32, Ye Liu wrote:
> From: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>
>
> Replace the remaining manual rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pairs
> in oom_cpuset_eligible(), select_bad_process(), dump_tasks(),
> task_will_free_mem(), and __oom_kill_process() with scoped_guard(rcu)
> for consistency and simpler control flow. scoped_guard(rcu) limits
> the RCU critical section to the loop body rather than the entire
> remaining function scope, making the protected region explicit and
> safer for future changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>
It almost looks like for_each_thread and for_each_process could gain an
rcu varian that would do the rcu thing internally. Have you considered
that? I am pretty sure there will be more cases like these.
Anyway
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Thanks
> ---
> v2:
> - Use scoped_guard instead of guard.
> - Link:https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260813032634.344946-1-ye.liu@linux.dev/
>
> mm/oom_kill.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 5f372f6e26fa..0e8982e5be51 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -94,27 +94,27 @@ static bool oom_cpuset_eligible(struct task_struct *start,
> bool ret = false;
> const nodemask_t *mask = oc->nodemask;
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - for_each_thread(start, tsk) {
> - if (mask) {
> - /*
> - * If this is a mempolicy constrained oom, tsk's
> - * cpuset is irrelevant. Only return true if its
> - * mempolicy intersects current, otherwise it may be
> - * needlessly killed.
> - */
> - ret = mempolicy_in_oom_domain(tsk, mask);
> - } else {
> - /*
> - * This is not a mempolicy constrained oom, so only
> - * check the mems of tsk's cpuset.
> - */
> - ret = cpuset_mems_allowed_intersects(current, tsk);
> + scoped_guard(rcu) {
> + for_each_thread(start, tsk) {
> + if (mask) {
> + /*
> + * If this is a mempolicy constrained oom, tsk's
> + * cpuset is irrelevant. Only return true if its
> + * mempolicy intersects current, otherwise it may be
> + * needlessly killed.
> + */
> + ret = mempolicy_in_oom_domain(tsk, mask);
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * This is not a mempolicy constrained oom, so only
> + * check the mems of tsk's cpuset.
> + */
> + ret = cpuset_mems_allowed_intersects(current, tsk);
> + }
> + if (ret)
> + break;
> }
> - if (ret)
> - break;
> }
> - rcu_read_unlock();
>
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -368,11 +368,11 @@ static void select_bad_process(struct oom_control *oc)
> else {
> struct task_struct *p;
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - for_each_process(p)
> - if (oom_evaluate_task(p, oc))
> - break;
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> + scoped_guard(rcu) {
> + for_each_process(p)
> + if (oom_evaluate_task(p, oc))
> + break;
> + }
> }
> }
>
> @@ -430,14 +430,14 @@ static void dump_tasks(struct oom_control *oc)
> struct task_struct *p;
> int i = 0;
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - for_each_process(p) {
> - /* Avoid potential softlockup warning */
> - if ((++i & 1023) == 0)
> - touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> - dump_task(p, oc);
> + scoped_guard(rcu) {
> + for_each_process(p) {
> + /* Avoid potential softlockup warning */
> + if ((++i & 1023) == 0)
> + touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> + dump_task(p, oc);
> + }
> }
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> }
> }
>
> @@ -894,17 +894,17 @@ static bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
> * are dying as well to make sure that a) nobody pins its mm and
> * b) the task is also reapable by the oom reaper.
> */
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - for_each_process(p) {
> - if (!process_shares_mm(p, mm))
> - continue;
> - if (same_thread_group(task, p))
> - continue;
> - ret = __task_will_free_mem(p);
> - if (!ret)
> - break;
> + scoped_guard(rcu) {
> + for_each_process(p) {
> + if (!process_shares_mm(p, mm))
> + continue;
> + if (same_thread_group(task, p))
> + continue;
> + ret = __task_will_free_mem(p);
> + if (!ret)
> + break;
> + }
> }
> - rcu_read_unlock();
>
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -960,29 +960,29 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim, const char *message)
> * That thread will now get access to memory reserves since it has a
> * pending fatal signal.
> */
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - for_each_process(p) {
> - if (!process_shares_mm(p, mm))
> - continue;
> - if (same_thread_group(p, victim))
> - continue;
> - if (is_global_init(p)) {
> - can_oom_reap = false;
> - mm_flags_set(MMF_OOM_SKIP, mm);
> - pr_info("oom killer %d (%s) has mm pinned by %d (%s)\n",
> - task_pid_nr(victim), victim->comm,
> - task_pid_nr(p), p->comm);
> - continue;
> + scoped_guard(rcu) {
> + for_each_process(p) {
> + if (!process_shares_mm(p, mm))
> + continue;
> + if (same_thread_group(p, victim))
> + continue;
> + if (is_global_init(p)) {
> + can_oom_reap = false;
> + mm_flags_set(MMF_OOM_SKIP, mm);
> + pr_info("oom killer %d (%s) has mm pinned by %d (%s)\n",
> + task_pid_nr(victim), victim->comm,
> + task_pid_nr(p), p->comm);
> + continue;
> + }
> + /*
> + * No kthread_use_mm() user needs to read from the userspace so
> + * we are ok to reap it.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> + continue;
> + do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_PRIV, p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> }
> - /*
> - * No kthread_use_mm() user needs to read from the userspace so
> - * we are ok to reap it.
> - */
> - if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> - continue;
> - do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_PRIV, p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> }
> - rcu_read_unlock();
>
> if (can_oom_reap)
> queue_oom_reaper(victim);
> --
> 2.25.1
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-13 11:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-13 9:29 [PATCH v2] mm/oom_kill: simplify remaining RCU sections with scoped_guard(rcu) Ye Liu
2026-08-13 11:40 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
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=an2tQ90mloFCU9T0@tiehlicka \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liuye@kylinos.cn \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=ye.liu@linux.dev \
/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