From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Kyle Walker <kwalker@redhat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Stanislav Kozina <skozina@redhat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm v2 3/3] mm/oom_kill: fix the wrong task->mm == mm checks in oom_kill_process()
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:24:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151001152458.941343718de09a6b2dfba8b1@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150930182411.GA15250@redhat.com>
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:24:11 +0200 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> Both "child->mm == mm" and "p->mm != mm" checks in oom_kill_process()
> are wrong. task->mm can be NULL if the task is the exited group leader.
> This means in particular that "kill sharing same memory" loop can miss
> a process with a zombie leader which uses the same ->mm.
>
> Note: the process_has_mm(child, p->mm) check is still not 100% correct,
> p->mm can be NULL too. This is minor, but probably deserves a fix or a
> comment anyway.
>
> ...
>
> +static bool process_shares_mm(struct task_struct *p, struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *t;
> +
> + for_each_thread(p, t) {
> + struct mm_struct *t_mm = READ_ONCE(t->mm);
> + if (t_mm)
> + return t_mm == mm;
> + }
> + return false;
> +}
Guys, please don't write write-only code. This function is deeply
unobvious and I don't think a typical reader will have a hope of
understanding why things are this way.
I had a lame attempt:
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c~mm-oom_kill-fix-the-wrong-task-mm-==-mm-checks-in-oom_kill_process-fix
+++ a/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -483,6 +483,12 @@ void oom_killer_enable(void)
oom_killer_disabled = false;
}
+/*
+ * task->mm can be NULL if the task is the exited group leader. So to
+ * determine whether the task is using a particular mm, we examine all the
+ * task's threads: if one of those is using this mm then this task was also
+ * using it.
+ */
static bool process_shares_mm(struct task_struct *p, struct mm_struct *mm)
{
struct task_struct *t;
_
Which makes me wonder if "process_shared_mm" or even
"process_used_to_share_mm" would be better names...
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-01 22:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-29 14:17 [PATCH -mm 0/3] mm/oom_kill: ensure we actually kill all tasks sharing the same mm Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-29 14:18 ` [PATCH -mm 1/3] mm/oom_kill: remove the wrong fatal_signal_pending() Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-29 22:36 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-30 1:42 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-30 13:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-30 15:20 ` [PATCH -mm 1/3] mm/oom_kill: remove the wrongfatal_signal_pending() Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-30 13:43 ` [PATCH -mm 1/3] mm/oom_kill: remove the wrong fatal_signal_pending() Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-29 14:18 ` [PATCH -mm 2/3] mm/oom_kill: cleanup the "kill sharing same memory" Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-29 22:39 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-30 13:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-29 14:18 ` [PATCH -mm 3/3] mm/oom_kill: fix the wrong task->mm == mm checks in Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-29 22:41 ` David Rientjes
2015-09-30 13:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-30 2:16 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-30 13:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-30 18:23 ` [PATCH -mm v2 0/3] mm/oom_kill: ensure we actually kill all tasks sharing the same mm Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-30 18:24 ` [PATCH -mm v2 1/3] mm/oom_kill: remove the wrong fatal_signal_pending() check in oom_kill_process() Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-30 21:14 ` David Rientjes
2015-10-01 10:52 ` [PATCH -mm v2 1/3] mm/oom_kill: remove the wrong fatal_signal_pending()check " Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-01 12:49 ` [PATCH -mm v2 1/3] mm/oom_kill: remove the wrong fatal_signal_pending() check " Michal Hocko
2015-10-01 15:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-10-01 15:27 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-01 15:41 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-10-01 16:19 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-01 17:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-10-02 11:32 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-02 12:11 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-02 12:33 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-02 13:32 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-02 13:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-10-02 14:24 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-02 14:07 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-02 14:15 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-10-02 13:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-10-02 14:36 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-09-30 18:24 ` [PATCH -mm v2 2/3] mm/oom_kill: cleanup the "kill sharing same memory" loop Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-30 21:15 ` David Rientjes
2015-10-01 12:50 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-30 18:24 ` [PATCH -mm v2 3/3] mm/oom_kill: fix the wrong task->mm == mm checks in oom_kill_process() Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-30 21:15 ` David Rientjes
2015-10-01 12:56 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-01 22:24 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
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=20151001152458.941343718de09a6b2dfba8b1@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kwalker@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=skozina@redhat.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®