linux-kernel - [PATCH RESEND] memcg, oom: unmark under

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20230923081739.398912-1-haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
Date:   Sat, 23 Sep 2023 08:17:39 +0000
From:   Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
To:     roman.gushchin@...ux.dev
Cc:     mhocko@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
Subject: [PATCH RESEND] memcg, oom: unmark under_oom after the oom killer is done

When application in userland receives oom notification from kernel
and reads the oom_control file, it's confusing that under_oom is 0
though the omm killer hasn't finished. The reason is that under_oom
is cleared before invoking mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(), so move the
action that unmark under_oom after completing oom handler. Therefore
the value of under_oom won't mislead users.

Signed-off-by: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
---
 mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index e8ca4bdcb03c..0b6ed63504ca 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1970,8 +1970,8 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t mask, int order)
 	if (locked)
 		mem_cgroup_oom_notify(memcg);
 
-	mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(memcg);
 	ret = mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(memcg, mask, order);
+	mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(memcg);
 
 	if (locked)
 		mem_cgroup_oom_unlock(memcg);
-- 
2.25.1