[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180720170902.d1137060c23802d55426aa03@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 17:09:02 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"David (ChunMing) Zhou" <David1.Zhou@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
Sudeep Dutt <sudeep.dutt@...el.com>,
Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@...el.com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 13:50:58 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>
> There are several blockable mmu notifiers which might sleep in
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start and that is a problem for the
> oom_reaper because it needs to guarantee a forward progress so it cannot
> depend on any sleepable locks.
>
> ...
>
> @@ -571,7 +565,12 @@ static bool oom_reap_task_mm(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
>
> trace_start_task_reaping(tsk->pid);
>
> - __oom_reap_task_mm(mm);
> + /* failed to reap part of the address space. Try again later */
> + if (!__oom_reap_task_mm(mm)) {
> + up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + ret = false;
> + goto unlock_oom;
> + }
This function is starting to look a bit screwy.
: static bool oom_reap_task_mm(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
: {
: if (!down_read_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)) {
: trace_skip_task_reaping(tsk->pid);
: return false;
: }
:
: /*
: * MMF_OOM_SKIP is set by exit_mmap when the OOM reaper can't
: * work on the mm anymore. The check for MMF_OOM_SKIP must run
: * under mmap_sem for reading because it serializes against the
: * down_write();up_write() cycle in exit_mmap().
: */
: if (test_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags)) {
: up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
: trace_skip_task_reaping(tsk->pid);
: return true;
: }
:
: trace_start_task_reaping(tsk->pid);
:
: /* failed to reap part of the address space. Try again later */
: if (!__oom_reap_task_mm(mm)) {
: up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
: return true;
: }
:
: pr_info("oom_reaper: reaped process %d (%s), now anon-rss:%lukB, file-rss:%lukB, shmem-rss:%lukB\n",
: task_pid_nr(tsk), tsk->comm,
: K(get_mm_counter(mm, MM_ANONPAGES)),
: K(get_mm_counter(mm, MM_FILEPAGES)),
: K(get_mm_counter(mm, MM_SHMEMPAGES)));
: up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
:
: trace_finish_task_reaping(tsk->pid);
: return true;
: }
- Undocumented return value.
- comment "failed to reap part..." is misleading - sounds like it's
referring to something which happened in the past, is in fact
referring to something which might happen in the future.
- fails to call trace_finish_task_reaping() in one case
- code duplication.
I'm thinking it wants to be something like this?
: /*
: * Return true if we successfully acquired (then released) mmap_sem
: */
: static bool oom_reap_task_mm(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
: {
: if (!down_read_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)) {
: trace_skip_task_reaping(tsk->pid);
: return false;
: }
:
: /*
: * MMF_OOM_SKIP is set by exit_mmap when the OOM reaper can't
: * work on the mm anymore. The check for MMF_OOM_SKIP must run
: * under mmap_sem for reading because it serializes against the
: * down_write();up_write() cycle in exit_mmap().
: */
: if (test_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags)) {
: trace_skip_task_reaping(tsk->pid);
: goto out;
: }
:
: trace_start_task_reaping(tsk->pid);
:
: if (!__oom_reap_task_mm(mm)) {
: /* Failed to reap part of the address space. Try again later */
: goto finish;
: }
:
: pr_info("oom_reaper: reaped process %d (%s), now anon-rss:%lukB, file-rss:%lukB, shmem-rss:%lukB\n",
: task_pid_nr(tsk), tsk->comm,
: K(get_mm_counter(mm, MM_ANONPAGES)),
: K(get_mm_counter(mm, MM_FILEPAGES)),
: K(get_mm_counter(mm, MM_SHMEMPAGES)));
: finish:
: trace_finish_task_reaping(tsk->pid);
: out:
: up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
: return true;
: }
- Increases mmap_sem hold time a little by moving
trace_finish_task_reaping() inside the locked region. So sue me ;)
- Sharing the finish: path means that the trace event won't
distinguish between the two sources of finishing.
Please take a look?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists