[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201707210647.BDH57894.MQOtFFOJHLSOFV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 06:47:11 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@...nel.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, hannes@...xchg.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom_reaper: close race without using oom_lock
Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 19-07-17 05:51:03, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 18-07-17 23:06:50, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > Commit e2fe14564d3316d1 ("oom_reaper: close race with exiting task")
> > > > guarded whole OOM reaping operations using oom_lock. But there was no
> > > > need to guard whole operations. We needed to guard only setting of
> > > > MMF_OOM_REAPED flag because get_page_from_freelist() in
> > > > __alloc_pages_may_oom() is called with oom_lock held.
> > > >
> > > > If we change to guard only setting of MMF_OOM_SKIP flag, the OOM reaper
> > > > can start reaping operations as soon as wake_oom_reaper() is called.
> > > > But since setting of MMF_OOM_SKIP flag at __mmput() is not guarded with
> > > > oom_lock, guarding only the OOM reaper side is not sufficient.
> > > >
> > > > If we change the OOM killer side to ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP flag once,
> > > > there is no need to guard setting of MMF_OOM_SKIP flag, and we can
> > > > guarantee a chance to call get_page_from_freelist() in
> > > > __alloc_pages_may_oom() without depending on oom_lock serialization.
> > > >
> > > > This patch makes MMF_OOM_SKIP act as if MMF_OOM_REAPED, and adds a new
> > > > flag which acts as if MMF_OOM_SKIP, in order to close both race window
> > > > (the OOM reaper side and __mmput() side) without using oom_lock.
> > >
> > > Why do we need this patch when
> > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170626130346.26314-1-mhocko@kernel.org
> > > already removes the lock and solves another problem at once?
> >
> > We haven't got an answer from Hugh and/or Andrea whether that patch is safe.
>
> So what? I haven't see anybody disputing the correctness. And to be
> honest I really dislike your patch. Yet another round kind of solutions
> are just very ugly hacks usually because they are highly timing
> sensitive.
Yes, OOM killer is highly timing sensitive.
>
> > Even if that patch is safe, this patch still helps with CONFIG_MMU=n case.
>
> Could you explain how?
Nothing prevents sequence below.
Process-1 Process-2
Takes oom_lock.
Fails get_page_from_freelist().
Enters out_of_memory().
Gets SIGKILL.
Gets TIF_MEMDIE.
Leaves out_of_memory().
Releases oom_lock.
Enters do_exit().
Calls __mmput().
Takes oom_lock.
Fails get_page_from_freelist().
Releases some memory.
Sets MMF_OOM_SKIP.
Enters out_of_memory().
Selects next victim because there is no !MMF_OOM_SKIP mm.
Sends SIGKILL needlessly.
If we ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP once, we can avoid sequence above.
Process-1 Process-2
Takes oom_lock.
Fails get_page_from_freelist().
Enters out_of_memory().
Get SIGKILL.
Get TIF_MEMDIE.
Leaves out_of_memory().
Releases oom_lock.
Enters do_exit().
Calls __mmput().
Takes oom_lock.
Fails get_page_from_freelist().
Releases some memory.
Sets MMF_OOM_SKIP.
Enters out_of_memory().
Ignores MMF_OOM_SKIP mm once.
Leaves out_of_memory().
Releases oom_lock.
Succeeds get_page_from_freelist().
Strictly speaking, this patch is independent with OOM reaper.
This patch increases possibility of succeeding get_page_from_freelist()
without sending SIGKILL. Your patch is trying to drop it silently.
Serializing setting of MMF_OOM_SKIP with oom_lock is one approach,
and ignoring MMF_OOM_SKIP once without oom_lock is another approach.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists