Re: [PATCH 6/5] oom, oom_reaper: disable oom_reaper for oom_kill_allocating_task
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Date: 2016-03-17 14:54:36
On Thu 17-03-16 23:34:13, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Michal Hocko wrote:quoted
On Thu 17-03-16 22:00:34, Tetsuo Handa wrote: [...]quoted
If you worry about too much work for a single RCU, you can do like what kmallocwd does. kmallocwd adds a marker to task_struct so that kmallocwd can reliably resume reporting.It is you who is trying to add a different debugging output so you should better make sure you won't swamp the user by something that might be not helpful after all by _default_. I would care much less if this was hidden by the debugging option like the current debug_show_all_locks.Then, we can do something like this. ----------diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c index affbb79..76b5c67 100644 --- a/mm/oom_kill.c +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c@@ -502,26 +502,20 @@ static void oom_reap_vmas(struct mm_struct *mm) schedule_timeout_idle(HZ/10); if (attempts > MAX_OOM_REAP_RETRIES) { +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING struct task_struct *p; struct task_struct *t; +#endif pr_info("oom_reaper: unable to reap memory\n"); - rcu_read_lock(); +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING + read_lock(&tasklist_lock); for_each_process_thread(p, t) { - if (likely(t->mm != mm)) - continue; - pr_info("oom_reaper: %s(%u) flags=0x%x%s%s%s%s\n", - t->comm, t->pid, t->flags, - (t->state & TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) ? - " uninterruptible" : "", - (t->flags & PF_EXITING) ? " exiting" : "", - fatal_signal_pending(t) ? " dying" : "", - test_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_MEMDIE) ? - " victim" : ""); - sched_show_task(t); - debug_show_held_locks(t); + if (t->mm == mm && t->state != TASK_RUNNING) + debug_show_held_locks(t); } - rcu_read_unlock(); + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); +#endif } /* Drop a reference taken by wake_oom_reaper */ ----------
Please send a separate patch with a full description, ideally with the example output and clarification why you think this is an improvement over the current situation. I do not think the patch you are replying to needs to be changed in any way. It seems correct and provides a useful information already. If you believe you can provide something more useful do it in an incremental change. Making a lot of fuzz with something that doesn't point to a _real_ issue in the patch to be merged is not particularly useful when we are in the merge window already.
Strictly speaking, neither debug_show_all_locks() nor debug_show_held_locks() are safe enough to guarantee that the system won't crash. commit 856848737bd944c1 "lockdep: fix debug_show_all_locks()" commit 82a1fcb90287052a "softlockup: automatically detect hung TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks" They are convenient but we should avoid using them if we care about possibility of crash.
I really fail to see your point. debug_show_all_locks doesn't mention any restriction of the risk nor it is restricted to a particular context. Were there some bugs in that area? Probably yes, so what? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>