[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1607140827330.15554@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 08:29:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
cc: rientjes@...gle.com, mhocko@...nel.org, okozina@...hat.com,
jmarchan@...hat.com, skozina@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: System freezes after OOM
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > OK, this is the part I have missed. I didn't realize that the swapout
> > path, which is indeed PF_MEMALLOC, can get down to blk code which uses
> > mempools. A quick code travers shows that at least
> > make_request_fn = blk_queue_bio
> > blk_queue_bio
> > get_request
> > __get_request
> >
> > might do that. And in that case I agree that the above mentioned patch
> > has unintentional side effects and should be re-evaluated. David, what
> > do you think? An obvious fixup would be considering TIF_MEMDIE in
> > mempool_alloc explicitly.
>
> TIF_MEMDIE is racy. Since the OOM killer sets TIF_MEMDIE on only one thread,
> there is no guarantee that TIF_MEMDIE is set to the thread which is looping
> inside mempool_alloc().
If the device mapper subsystem is not returning objects to the mempool, it
should be investigated as a bug in the device mapper.
There is no need to add workarounds to mempool_alloc to work around that
bug.
Mikulas
> And since __GFP_NORETRY is used (regardless of
> f9054c70d28bc214), out_of_memory() is not called via __alloc_pages_may_oom().
> This means that the thread which is looping inside mempool_alloc() can't
> get TIF_MEMDIE unless TIF_MEMDIE is set by the OOM killer.
>
> Maybe set __GFP_NOMEMALLOC by default at mempool_alloc() and remove it
> at mempool_alloc() when fatal_signal_pending() is true? But that behavior
> can OOM-kill somebody else when current was not OOM-killed. Sigh...
>
> David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >
> > > What are the real problems that f9054c70d28bc214b2857cf8db8269f4f45a5e23
> > > tries to fix?
> > >
> >
> > It prevents the whole system from livelocking due to an oom killed process
> > stalling forever waiting for mempool_alloc() to return. No other threads
> > may be oom killed while waiting for it to exit.
>
> Is that concern still valid? We have the OOM reaper for CONFIG_MMU=y case.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists