Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm/oom_kill: Have the OOM reaper and exit_mmap() traverse the maple tree in opposite order

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>]

On Tue 26-08-25 13:53:43, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 09:38:55PM +0800, zhongjinji wrote:
> > When a process is OOM killed without reaper delay, the oom reaper and the
> > exit_mmap() thread likely run simultaneously. They traverse the vma's maple
> > tree along the same path and may easily unmap the same vma, causing them to
> > compete for the pte spinlock.
> >
> > When a process exits, exit_mmap() traverses the vma's maple tree from low
> > to high addresses. To reduce the chance of unmapping the same vma
> > simultaneously, the OOM reaper should traverse the vma's tree from high to
> > low address.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@honor.com>
> 
> I will leave it to Liam to confirm the maple tree bit is ok, but I guess
> I'm softening to the idea of doing this - because it should have no impact
> on most users, so even if it's some rare edge case that triggers the
> situation, then it's worth doing it in reverse just to help you guys out :)

I tend to agree on this. I would expect that oom_reaper would race with
exit_mmap only for seriously stalled processes or huge memory consumers
where exit_mmap takes a while. oom_reaper would be quick to catch the
exit_mmap as it wouldn't have fewer work to do on already released
memory.
Going from the other end of the address space might reduces this chance
while not really introducing any actual issues.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs