Thread (40 messages) 40 messages, 8 authors, 2012-07-19

Re: [patch 4/5] mm, oom: reduce dependency on tasklist_lock

From: Oleg Nesterov <hidden>
Date: 2012-07-03 18:19:35
Also in: linux-mm

On 06/29, David Rientjes wrote:
+/*
+ * Must be called while holding a reference to p, which will be released upon
+ * returning.
+ */
I am not really sure this is the most clean approach, see below...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 		      unsigned int points, unsigned long totalpages,
 		      struct mem_cgroup *memcg, nodemask_t *nodemask,
@@ -454,6 +462,7 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 	 */
 	if (p->flags & PF_EXITING) {
 		set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
+		put_task_struct(p);
 		return;
 	}
 
@@ -471,6 +480,7 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 	 * parent.  This attempts to lose the minimal amount of work done while
 	 * still freeing memory.
 	 */
+	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	do {
 		list_for_each_entry(child, &t->children, sibling) {
 			unsigned int child_points;
@@ -483,15 +493,26 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 			child_points = oom_badness(child, memcg, nodemask,
 								totalpages);
 			if (child_points > victim_points) {
+				put_task_struct(victim);
 				victim = child;
 				victim_points = child_points;
+				get_task_struct(victim);
 			}
 		}
 	} while_each_thread(p, t);
+	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 
-	victim = find_lock_task_mm(victim);
-	if (!victim)
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	p = find_lock_task_mm(victim);
+	if (!p) {
+		rcu_read_unlock();
+		put_task_struct(victim);
 		return;
+	} else if (victim != p) {
+		get_task_struct(p);
+		put_task_struct(victim);
+		victim = p;
+	}
 
 	/* mm cannot safely be dereferenced after task_unlock(victim) */
 	mm = victim->mm;
@@ -522,9 +543,11 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 			task_unlock(p);
 			do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true);
 		}
+	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	set_tsk_thread_flag(victim, TIF_MEMDIE);
 	do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, victim, true);
+	put_task_struct(victim);
It seems to me we can avoid this get/put dance in oom_kill_process(),
just you need to extend the rcu-protected area. In this case the caller
of select_bad_process() does a single put_, and
sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task doesn't need get_task_struct(current).
Look more clean/simple to me.

However. This is subjective, and I see nothing wrong in this patch,
I won't insist.

Looks correct.

Oleg.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help