[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <95cb93ec-2421-3c5d-fd1e-91d9696b0f5a@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 18:47:43 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] mm, oom: hand over MMF_OOM_SKIP to exit path
if it is guranteed to finish
On 2018/10/30 15:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 30-10-18 13:45:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>> vma = remove_vma(vma);
>>> }
>>> vm_unacct_memory(nr_accounted);
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Now that the full address space is torn down, make sure the
>>> + * OOM killer skips over this task
>>> + */
>>> + if (oom)
>>> + set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags);
>>> }
>>>
>>> /* Insert vm structure into process list sorted by address
>>
>> I don't like setting MMF_OOF_SKIP after remove_vma() loop. 50 users might
>> call vma->vm_ops->close() from remove_vma(). Some of them are doing fs
>> writeback, some of them might be doing GFP_KERNEL allocation from
>> vma->vm_ops->open() with a lock also held by vma->vm_ops->close().
>>
>> I don't think that waiting for completion of remove_vma() loop is safe.
>
> What do you mean by 'safe' here?
>
safe = "Does not cause OOM lockup."
remove_vma() is allowed to sleep, and some users might depend on memory
allocation when the OOM killer is waiting for remove_vma() to complete.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists