Date:   Fri, 9 Sep 2016 16:08:51 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, rientjes@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        oleg@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/4] mm, oom: do not rely on TIF_MEMDIE for exit_oom_victim

On Sun 04-09-16 10:50:02, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > mark_oom_victim and exit_oom_victim are used for oom_killer_disable
> > which should block as long as there any any oom victims alive. Up to now
> > we have relied on TIF_MEMDIE task flag to count how many oom victim
> > we have. This is not optimal because only one thread receives this flag
> > at the time while the whole process (thread group) is killed and should
> > die. As a result we do not thaw the whole thread group and so a multi
> > threaded process can leave some threads behind in the fridge. We really
> > want to thaw all the threads.
> > 
> > This is not all that easy because there is no reliable way to count
> > threads in the process as the oom killer might race with copy_process.
> 
> What is wrong with racing with copy_process()? Threads doing copy_process()
> are not frozen and thus we don't need to thaw such threads. Also, being
> OOM-killed implies receiving SIGKILL. Thus, newly created thread will also
> enter do_exit().

The problem is that we cannot rely on signal->nr_threads to know when
the last one is passing exit to declare the whole group done and wake
the waiter on the oom killer lock.

> > So marking all threads with TIF_MEMDIE and increment oom_victims
> > accordingly is not safe. Also TIF_MEMDIE flag should just die so
> > we should better come up with a different approach.
> > 
> > All we need to guarantee is that exit_oom_victim is called at the time
> > when no further access to (possibly suspended) devices or generate other
> > IO (which would clobber suspended image and only once per process)
> > is possible. It seems we can rely on exit_notify for that because we
> > already have to detect the last thread to do a cleanup. Let's propagate
> > that information up to do_exit and only call exit_oom_victim for such
> > a thread. With this in place we can safely increment oom_victims only
> > once per thread group and thaw all the threads from the process.
> > freezing_slow_path can also rely on tsk_is_oom_victim as well now.
> 
> If marking all threads which belong to tsk thread group with TIF_MEMDIE
> is not safe (due to possible race with copy_process()), how can
> 
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	for_each_thread(tsk, t)
> 		__thaw_task(t);
> 	rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> in mark_oom_victim() guarantee that all threads which belong to tsk
> thread group are thawed?

Because all the frozen thread already have to be hashed and those which
are in the middle of copy process will be tsk_is_oom_victim and so the
freezer will skip them.

> Unless all threads which belong to tsk thread group in __refrigerator()
> are guaranteed to be thawed, they might fail to leave __refrigerator()
> in order to enter do_exit() which means that exit_oom_victim() won't be
> called.
> 
> Do we want to thaw OOM victims from the beginning? If the freezer
> depends on CONFIG_MMU=y , we don't need to thaw OOM victims.

We want to thaw them, at least at this stage, because the task might be
sitting on a memory which is not reclaimable by the oom reaper (e.g.
different buffers of file descriptors etc.).

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists