Re: [PATCH] exit: clear TIF_MEMDIE after exit_task_work

Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-06-13T18:11:38Z

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 01:50:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-06-16 14:50:14, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 14-03-16 17:39:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 01-03-16 19:20:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 06:17:58PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > Sorry, I could have been more verbose... The code would have to make sure
> > > > > that the mm is still alive before calling g-u-p by
> > > > > atomic_inc_not_zero(&mm->mm_users) and fail if the user count dropped to
> > > > > 0 in the mean time. See how fs/proc/task_mmu.c does that (proc_mem_open
> > > > > + m_start + m_stop.
> > > > >
> > > > > The biggest advanatage would be that the mm address space pin would be
> > > > > only for the particular operation. Not sure whether that is possible in
> > > > > the driver though. Anyway pinning the mm for a potentially unbounded
> > > > > amount of time doesn't sound too nice.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm that would be another atomic on data path ...
> > > > I'd have to explore that.
> > >
> > > Did you have any chance to look into this?
> >
> > So this is my take to get rid of mm_users pinning for an unbounded
> > amount of time. This is even not compile tested. I am not sure how to
> > handle when the mm goes away while there are still work items pending.
> > It seems this is not handled current anyway and only shouts with a
> > warning so this shouldn't cause a new regression AFAICS. I am not
> > familiar with the vnet code at all so I might be missing many things,
> > though. Does the below sound even remotely reasonable to you Michael?
>
> I have checked the vnet code and it doesn't seem to rely on
> copy_from_user/get_user AFAICS. Other users of use_mm() need to copy to
> the userspace only as well.

E.g. vhost_get_vq_desc calls __get_user quite a lot.
I think it should be safe for it to fail, but
not to trigger warnings/errors.

> So we should be perfectly safe to OOM reap
> address space even when it is shared by the kthread [1] so this is
> not really needed for the OOM correctness purpose. It would be much
> nicer if the kthread didn't pin the mm for two long outside of the OOM
> handling as well of course but that lowers the priority of the change.
>
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160613112348.GC6518@dhcp22.suse.cz
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs