Oleg Nesterov wrote:

Since I mentioned TIF_MEMDIE in another thread, I simply can't resist.
Sorry for grunting.

On 06/24, Tetsuo Handa wrote:

quoted

--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h

@@ -801,6 +801,7 @@ struct signal_struct {
 	 * oom
 	 */
 	bool oom_flag_origin;
+	bool oom_ignore_victims;        /* Ignore oom_victims value */
 	short oom_score_adj;		/* OOM kill score adjustment */
 	short oom_score_adj_min;	/* OOM kill score adjustment min value.
 					 * Only settable by CAP_SYS_RESOURCE. */

Yet another kludge to fix yet another problem with TIF_MEMDIE. Not
to mention that that wh

Can't we state the fact TIF_MEMDIE is just broken? The very idea imo.

Yes. TIF_MEMDIE is a trouble maker.

Setting TIF_MEMDIE is per task_struct operation.
Sending SIGKILL is per signal_struct operation.
OOM killer is per mm_struct operation.

I am starting to seriously think we should kill this flag, fix the
compilation errors, remove the dead code (including the oom_victims
logic), and then try to add something else. Say, even MMF_MEMDIE looks
better although I understand it is not that simple.

I wish that TIF_MEMDIE is per signal_struct flag. But since we allow
mm-less TIF_MEMDIE thread to use ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS via TIF_MEMDIE
inside __mmput() from mmput() from exit_mm() from do_exit(), we can't
replace

  test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE)

in gfp_to_alloc_flags() with

  current->signal->oom_killed

or

  current->mm && (current->mm->flags & MMF_MEMDIE)

. But

Just one question. Why do we need this bit outside of oom-kill.c? It
affects page_alloc.c and this probably makes sense. But who get this
flag when we decide to kill the memory hog? A random thread foung by
find_lock_task_mm(), iow a random thread with ->mm != NULL, likely the
group leader. This simply can not be right no matter what.

I agree that setting TIF_MEMDIE to only first ->mm != NULL thread
does not make sense.

I've proposed setting TIF_MEMDIE to all ->mm != NULL threads which are
killed by the OOM killer because doing so won't increase the risk of
depleting the memory reserves, for TIF_MEMDIE helps only if that thread is
doing memory allocation
( http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1458529634-5951-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp ),
but it did not happen.

And in any case I don't understand this patch but I have to admit that
I failed to force myself to read the changelog and the actual change ;)
In any case I agree that we should not set MMF_MEMDIE if ->mm == NULL,
and if we ensure this then I do not understand why we can't rely on
MMF_OOM_REAPED. Ignoring the obvious races, if ->oom_victims != 0 then
find_lock_task_mm() should succed.

Since we are using

  mm = current->mm;
  current->mm = NULL;
  __mmput(mm); (may block for unbounded period waiting for somebody else's memory allocation)
  exit_oom_victim(current);

sequence, we won't be able to make find_lock_task_mm(tsk) != NULL when
tsk->signal->oom_victims != 0 unless we change this sequence.
My patch tries to rescue it using tsk->signal->oom_ignore_victims flag.

Oleg.

--
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>