Message-ID: <CAJuCfpGtnVdrYs4LW+joxbVg_o6=KuHf18GnyWxyOMYWSjOTQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 May 2022 16:08:07 -0700
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>
Cc:     "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "mhocko@...e.com" <mhocko@...e.com>,
        "rientjes@...gle.com" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        "willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>,
        "hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "guro@...com" <guro@...com>,
        "minchan@...nel.org" <minchan@...nel.org>,
        "kirill@...temov.name" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        "aarcange@...hat.com" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
        "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
        "jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "shakeelb@...gle.com" <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        "peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
        "jhubbard@...dia.com" <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "kernel-team@...roid.com" <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: drop oom code from exit_mmap

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:56 PM Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> * Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> [220519 17:33]:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 1:22 PM Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > * Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> [220516 03:56]:
> > > > The primary reason to invoke the oom reaper from the exit_mmap path used
> > > > to be a prevention of an excessive oom killing if the oom victim exit
> > > > races with the oom reaper (see [1] for more details). The invocation has
> > > > moved around since then because of the interaction with the munlock
> > > > logic but the underlying reason has remained the same (see [2]).
> > > >
> > > > Munlock code is no longer a problem since [3] and there shouldn't be
> > > > any blocking operation before the memory is unmapped by exit_mmap so
> > > > the oom reaper invocation can be dropped. The unmapping part can be done
> > > > with the non-exclusive mmap_sem and the exclusive one is only required
> > > > when page tables are freed.
> > > >
> > > > Remove the oom_reaper from exit_mmap which will make the code easier to
> > > > read. This is really unlikely to make any observable difference although
> > > > some microbenchmarks could benefit from one less branch that needs to be
> > > > evaluated even though it almost never is true.
> > > >
> > > > [1] 212925802454 ("mm: oom: let oom_reap_task and exit_mmap run concurrently")
> > > > [2] 27ae357fa82b ("mm, oom: fix concurrent munlock and oom reaper unmap, v3")
> > > > [3] a213e5cf71cb ("mm/munlock: delete munlock_vma_pages_all(), allow oomreap")
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/linux/oom.h |  2 --
> > > >  mm/mmap.c           | 31 ++++++++++++-------------------
> > > >  mm/oom_kill.c       |  2 +-
> > > >  3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h
> > > > index 2db9a1432511..6cdf0772dbae 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/oom.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/oom.h
> > > > @@ -106,8 +106,6 @@ static inline vm_fault_t check_stable_address_space(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > >       return 0;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > -bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > > -
> > > >  long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p,
> > > >               unsigned long totalpages);
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> > > > index 313b57d55a63..ded42150e706 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/mmap.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> > > > @@ -3105,30 +3105,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > >       /* mm's last user has gone, and its about to be pulled down */
> > > >       mmu_notifier_release(mm);
> > > >
> > > > -     if (unlikely(mm_is_oom_victim(mm))) {
> > > > -             /*
> > > > -              * Manually reap the mm to free as much memory as possible.
> > > > -              * Then, as the oom reaper does, set MMF_OOM_SKIP to disregard
> > > > -              * this mm from further consideration.  Taking mm->mmap_lock for
> > > > -              * write after setting MMF_OOM_SKIP will guarantee that the oom
> > > > -              * reaper will not run on this mm again after mmap_lock is
> > > > -              * dropped.
> > > > -              *
> > > > -              * Nothing can be holding mm->mmap_lock here and the above call
> > > > -              * to mmu_notifier_release(mm) ensures mmu notifier callbacks in
> > > > -              * __oom_reap_task_mm() will not block.
> > > > -              */
> > > > -             (void)__oom_reap_task_mm(mm);
> > > > -             set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags);
> > > > -     }
> > > > -
> > > > -     mmap_write_lock(mm);
> > > > +     mmap_read_lock(mm);
> > > >       arch_exit_mmap(mm);
> > >
> > > arch_exit_mmap() was called under the write lock before, is it safe to
> > > call it under the read lock?
> >
> > Ah, good catch. I missed at least one call chain which I believe would
> > require arch_exit_mmap() to be called under write lock:
> >
> > arch_exit_mmap
> >     ldt_arch_exit_mmap
> >         free_ldt_pgtables
> >             free_pgd_range
> >
> > I'll need to check whether arch_exit_mmap() has to be called before
> > unmap_vmas(). If not, we could move it further down when we hold the
> > write lock.
> > Andrew, please remove this patchset from your tree for now until I fix this.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >       vma = mm->mmap;
> > > >       if (!vma) {
> > > >               /* Can happen if dup_mmap() received an OOM */
> > > > -             mmap_write_unlock(mm);
> > > > +             mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> > > >               return;
> > > >       }
> > > >
> > > > @@ -3138,6 +3121,16 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > >       /* update_hiwater_rss(mm) here? but nobody should be looking */
> > > >       /* Use -1 here to ensure all VMAs in the mm are unmapped */
> > > >       unmap_vmas(&tlb, vma, 0, -1);
> > > > +     mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> > > > +
> > > > +     /*
> > > > +      * Set MMF_OOM_SKIP to hide this task from the oom killer/reaper
> > > > +      * because the memory has been already freed. Do not bother checking
> > > > +      * mm_is_oom_victim because setting a bit unconditionally is cheaper.
> > > > +      */
> > > > +     set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags);
> > > > +
> > > > +     mmap_write_lock(mm);
> > >
> > > Is there a race here?  We had a VMA but after the read lock was dropped,
> > > could the oom killer cause the VMA to be invalidated?  I don't think so
> > > but the comment above about dup_mmap() receiving an OOM makes me
> > > question it.  The code before kept the write lock from when the VMA was
> > > found until the end of the mm edits - and it had the check for !vma
> > > within the block itself.  We are also hiding it from the oom killer
> > > outside the read lock so it is possible for oom to find it in that
> > > window, right?
> >
> > When I was trying to understand that comment and looked into
> > dup_mmap() code, my conclusion was that this check was there to
> > protect us from the case when dup_mmap() gets interrupted and leaves
> > mm->mmap=NULL. So, in a sense it was not really a race with OOM killer
> > but an interrupted dup_mmap() case. So, once we checked it above we
> > don't need to recheck again under write lock. When I asked Michal
> > about this he was in agreement but it's possible we overlooked some
> > corner case. If so, please let me know and I can add this check here.
>
> I didn't see how it was a problem either, neither of the other entry
> points modify the vma linked list/tree.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Could we just unconditionally set the skip bit before taking a write
> > > lock for the duration of the exit?  I'm probably missing your reason for
> > > doing it this way.
> >
> > That's what I'm doing - unconditionally setting MMF_OOM_SKIP before
> > taking the write lock. Did I miss something?
>
> Sorry, I meant to type "before the read lock".  I think you answered
> this in the other thread though.  I think you want the oom killer and
> process_mrelease to be able to run in parallel to the exiting of the
> task?  If so, is it worth all tasks taking the read lock and then
> dropping it to allow this rare case?

In the usual case the lock should be uncontended, so should not be an
issue I think.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >       free_pgtables(&tlb, vma, FIRST_USER_ADDRESS, USER_PGTABLES_CEILING);
> > > >       tlb_finish_mmu(&tlb);
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > index 49d7df39b02d..36355b162727 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > @@ -509,7 +509,7 @@ static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(oom_reaper_wait);
> > > >  static struct task_struct *oom_reaper_list;
> > > >  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(oom_reaper_lock);
> > > >
> > > > -bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > > +static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > >  {
> > > >       struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > >       bool ret = true;
> > > > --
> > > > 2.36.0.550.gb090851708-goog
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@...roid.com.
> > >
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@...roid.com.
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists