[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56138495-fd91-62f8-464a-db9960bfeb28@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 22:20:49 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [rfc patch] mm, oom: fix unnecessary killing of additional
processes
On 2018/06/05 17:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> For this reason, we see testing harnesses often oom killed immediately
>> after running a unittest that stresses reclaim or compaction by inducing a
>> system-wide oom condition. The harness spawns the unittest which spawns
>> an antagonist memory hog that is intended to be oom killed. When memory
>> is mlocked or there are a large number of threads faulting memory for the
>> antagonist, the unittest and the harness itself get oom killed because the
>> oom reaper sets MMF_OOM_SKIP; this ends up happening a lot on powerpc.
>> The memory hog has mm->mmap_sem readers queued ahead of a writer that is
>> doing mmap() so the oom reaper can't grab the sem quickly enough.
>
> How come the writer doesn't back off. mmap paths should be taking an
> exclusive mmap sem in killable sleep so it should back off. Or is the
> holder of the lock deep inside mmap path doing something else and not
> backing out with the exclusive lock held?
>
Here is an example where the writer doesn't back off.
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180607150546.1c7db21f70221008e14b8bb8@linux-foundation.org
down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem) is nothing but increasing the possibility of
successfully back off. There is no guarantee that the owner of that exclusive
mmap sem will not be blocked by other unkillable waits.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists