Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1663287

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the#PF

From Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the#PF
Date 2017-06-12 09:40 +0200
Message-ID <tRs77-7DQ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <tQ6Lo-5sD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <tQsLW-2vh-55@gated-at.bofh.it> <tQtoB-2MZ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tQKfM-4Nt-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <tQNdD-6xF-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Sat 10-06-17 20:57:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > And just to clarify a bit. The OOM killer should be invoked whenever
> > appropriate from the allocation context. If we decide to fail the
> > allocation in the PF path then we can safely roll back and retry the
> > whole PF. This has an advantage that any locks held while doing the
> > allocation will be released and that alone can help to make a further
> > progress. Moreover we can relax retry-for-ever _inside_ the allocator
> > semantic for the PF path and fail allocations when we cannot make
> > further progress even after we hit the OOM condition or we do stall for
> > too long.
> 
> What!? Are you saying that leave the allocator loop rather than invoke
> the OOM killer if it is from page fault event without __GFP_FS set?
> With below patch applied (i.e. ignore __GFP_FS for emulation purpose),
> I can trivially observe systemwide lockup where the OOM killer is
> never called.

Because you have ruled the OOM out of the game completely from the PF
path AFICS. So that is clearly _not_ what I meant (read the second
sentence). What I meant was that page fault allocations _could_ fail
_after_ we have used _all_ the reclaim opportunities. Without this patch
this would be impossible. Note that I am not proposing that change now
because that would require a deeper audit but it sounds like a viable
way to go long term.

> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index b896897..c79dfd5 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3255,6 +3255,9 @@ void warn_alloc(gfp_t gfp_mask, nodemask_t *nodemask, const char *fmt, ...)
>  
>  	*did_some_progress = 0;
>  
> +	if (current->in_pagefault)
> +		return NULL;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Acquire the oom lock.  If that fails, somebody else is
>  	 * making progress for us.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the  #PF Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-06-08 16:40 +0200
  Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the  #PF Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> - 2017-06-09 16:10 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the  #PF Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-06-09 16:50 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the  #PF Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-06-10 10:50 +0200
        Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the#PF Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2017-06-10 14:00 +0200
          Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the#PF Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-06-12 09:40 +0200
            Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the #PF Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2017-06-12 12:50 +0200
              Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory from the  #PF Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-06-12 13:10 +0200

csiph-web