On Thu 26-03-15 11:23:43, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:32:23PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 26-03-15 07:24:45, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:15:48PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > /*
> > > > > - * Acquire the oom lock. If that fails, somebody else is
> > > > > - * making progress for us.
> > > > > + * This allocating task can become the OOM victim itself at
> > > > > + * any point before acquiring the lock. In that case, exit
> > > > > + * quickly and don't block on the lock held by another task
> > > > > + * waiting for us to exit.
> > > > > */
> > > > > - if (!mutex_trylock(&oom_lock)) {
> > > > > - *did_some_progress = 1;
> > > > > - schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> > > > > - return NULL;
> > > > > + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) ||
> > > > > mutex_lock_killable(&oom_lock)) {
> > > > > + alloc_flags |= ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS;
> > > > > + goto alloc;
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > When a thread group has 1000 threads and most of them are doing memory
> > > > allocation
> > > > request, all of them will get fatal_signal_pending() == true when one
> > > > of them are
> > > > chosen by OOM killer.
> > > > This code will allow most of them to access memory reserves, won't it?
> > >
> > > Ah, good point! Only TIF_MEMDIE should get reserve access, not just
> > > any dying thread. Thanks, I'll fix it in v2.
> >
> > Do you plan to post this v2 here for review?
>
> Yeah, I was going to wait for feedback to settle before updating the
> code. But I was thinking something like this?
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 9ce9c4c083a0..106793a75461 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2344,7 +2344,8 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int
> order, int alloc_flags,
> * waiting for us to exit.
> */
> if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) || mutex_lock_killable(&oom_lock)) {
> - alloc_flags |= ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS;
> + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
> + alloc_flags |= ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS;
> goto alloc;
> }
OK, I have expected something like this. I understand why you want to
retry inside this function. But I would prefer if gfp_to_alloc_flags was
used here so that we do not have that TIF_MEMDIE logic duplicated at two
places.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
