mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@suse.de>,
	"San Mehat" <san@android.com>,
	"Arve Hjønnevåg" <arve@android.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 7/7] oom: prevent possible OOM_DISABLE livelock
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 12:22:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090505102250.GC28917@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905041726170.11756@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 05:27:07PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> It is currently possible to livelock the oom killer if a task is chosen
> for oom kill and another thread sharing the same memory has an oom_adj
> value of OOM_DISABLE.  This occurs because oom_kill_task() repeatedly

Hmm, but didn't the last patch make it a per-mm value?

> returns 1 and refuses to kill the chosen task while select_bad_process()
> will repeatedly chooses the same task during the next retry.
> 
> This moves the check for OOM_DISABLE to the badness heuristic while
> holding task_lock().  Badness scores of 0 are now explicitly prohibited
> from being oom killed and since the oom_adj value is a characteristic of
> an mm and not a task, it is no longer necessary to check the oom_adj
> value for threads sharing the same memory (except when simply issuing
> SIGKILLs for threads in other thread groups).
> 
> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> ---
>  mm/oom_kill.c |   40 ++++++++++------------------------------
>  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,10 @@ unsigned long badness(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long uptime)
>  		return 0;
>  	}
>  	oom_adj = mm->oom_adj;
> +	if (oom_adj == OOM_DISABLE) {
> +		task_unlock(p);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * The memory size of the process is the basis for the badness.
> @@ -253,13 +257,8 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned long *ppoints,
>  			*ppoints = ULONG_MAX;
>  		}
>  
> -		task_lock(p);
> -		if (p->mm && p->mm->oom_adj == OOM_DISABLE)
> -			continue;
> -		task_unlock(p);
> -
>  		points = badness(p, uptime.tv_sec);
> -		if (points > *ppoints || !chosen) {
> +		if (points > *ppoints) {
>  			chosen = p;
>  			*ppoints = points;
>  		}
> @@ -352,32 +351,13 @@ static int oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p)
>  	struct mm_struct *mm;
>  	struct task_struct *g, *q;
>  
> +	task_lock(p);
>  	mm = p->mm;
> -
> -	/* WARNING: mm may not be dereferenced since we did not obtain its
> -	 * value from get_task_mm(p).  This is OK since all we need to do is
> -	 * compare mm to q->mm below.
> -	 *
> -	 * Furthermore, even if mm contains a non-NULL value, p->mm may
> -	 * change to NULL at any time since we do not hold task_lock(p).
> -	 * However, this is of no concern to us.
> -	 */
> -
> -	if (mm == NULL)
> +	if (!mm || mm->oom_adj == OOM_DISABLE) {
> +		task_unlock(p);
>  		return 1;
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Don't kill the process if any threads are set to OOM_DISABLE
> -	 */
> -	do_each_thread(g, q) {
> -		task_lock(q);
> -		if (q->mm == mm && q->mm && q->mm->oom_adj == OOM_DISABLE) {
> -			task_unlock(q);
> -			return 1;
> -		}
> -		task_unlock(q);
> -	} while_each_thread(g, q);
> -
> +	}
> +	task_unlock(p);
>  	__oom_kill_task(p, 1);
>  
>  	/*

  reply	other threads:[~2009-05-05 10:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-05  0:26 [patch 1/7] lowmemorykiller: Only iterate over process list when needed David Rientjes
2009-05-05  0:26 ` [patch 2/7] lowmemorykiller: Don't count free space unless it meets the specified limit by itself David Rientjes
2009-05-05  0:26 ` [patch 3/7] oom: cleanup android low memory killer David Rientjes
2009-05-05  0:26 ` [patch 4/7] oom: fix possible android low memory killer NULL pointer David Rientjes
2009-05-05  0:27 ` [patch 5/7] oom: fix possible oom_dump_tasks " David Rientjes
2009-05-05 10:11   ` Nick Piggin
2009-05-05  0:27 ` [patch 6/7] oom: move oom_adj value from task_struct to mm_struct David Rientjes
2009-05-05 10:18   ` Nick Piggin
2009-05-05 18:29     ` David Rientjes
2009-05-05  0:27 ` [patch 7/7] oom: prevent possible OOM_DISABLE livelock David Rientjes
2009-05-05 10:22   ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2009-05-05 18:33     ` David Rientjes
2009-05-05 10:23 ` [patch 1/7] lowmemorykiller: Only iterate over process list when needed Nick Piggin
2009-05-05 16:31   ` Greg KH

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090505102250.GC28917@wotan.suse.de \
    --to=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arve@android.com \
    --cc=gregkh@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=san@android.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome