[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150326133111.GJ15257@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:31:11 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [patch 06/12] mm: oom_kill: simplify OOM killer locking
On Wed 25-03-15 02:17:10, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> The zonelist locking and the oom_sem are two overlapping locks that
> are used to serialize global OOM killing against different things.
>
> The historical zonelist locking serializes OOM kills from allocations
> with overlapping zonelists against each other to prevent killing more
> tasks than necessary in the same memory domain. Only when neither
> tasklists nor zonelists from two concurrent OOM kills overlap (tasks
> in separate memcgs bound to separate nodes) are OOM kills allowed to
> execute in parallel.
>
> The younger oom_sem is a read-write lock to serialize OOM killing
> against the PM code trying to disable the OOM killer altogether.
>
> However, the OOM killer is a fairly cold error path, there is really
> no reason to optimize for highly performant and concurrent OOM kills.
> And the oom_sem is just flat-out redundant.
>
> Replace both locking schemes with a single global mutex serializing
> OOM kills regardless of context.
OK, this is much simpler.
You have missed drivers/tty/sysrq.c which should take the lock as well.
ZONE_OOM_LOCKED can be removed as well. __out_of_memory in the kerneldoc
should be renamed.
[...]
> @@ -795,27 +728,21 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct zonelist *zonelist, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> */
> void pagefault_out_of_memory(void)
> {
> - struct zonelist *zonelist;
> -
> - down_read(&oom_sem);
> if (mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize(true))
> - goto unlock;
> + return;
OK, so we are back to what David has asked previously. We do not need
the lock for memcg and oom_killer_disabled because we know that no tasks
(except for potential oom victim) are lurking around at the time
oom_killer_disable() is called. So I guess we want to stick a comment
into mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize before we check for oom_killer_disabled.
After those are fixed, feel free to add
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists