Re: Possible race condition in oom-killer

[Manish Jaggi]

Hi Michal,
On 7/28/2017 6:02 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CC linux-mm]
>
> On Fri 28-07-17 17:22:25, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
> >
> > Hi Michal,
> > On 7/27/2017 2:54 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 27-07-17 13:59:09, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > With 4.11.6 I was getting random kernel panics (Out of memory - No process left to kill),
> > > >   when running LTP oom01 /oom02 ltp tests on our arm64 hardware with ~256G memory and high core count.
> > > > The issue experienced was as follows
> > > > 	that either test (oom01/oom02) selected a pid as victim and waited for the pid to be killed.
> > > > 	that pid was marked as killed but somewhere there is a race and the process didnt get killed.
> > > > 	and the oom01/oom02 test started killing further processes, till it panics.
> > > > IIUC this issue is quite similar to your patch description. But applying your patch I still see the issue.
> > > > If it is not related to this patch, can you please suggest by looking at the log, what could be preventing
> > > > the killing of victim.
> > > >
> > > > Log (https://pastebin.com/hg5iXRj2)
> > > >
> > > > As a subtest of oom02 starts, it prints out the victim - In this case 4578
> > > >
> > > > oom02       0  TINFO  :  start OOM testing for mlocked pages.
> > > > oom02       0  TINFO  :  expected victim is 4578.
> > > >
> > > > When oom02 thread invokes oom-killer, it did select 4578  for killing...
> > > I will definitely have a look. Can you report it in a separate email
> > > thread please? Are you able to reproduce with the current Linus or
> > > linux-next trees?
> > Yes this issue is visible with linux-next.
> Could you provide the full kernel log from this run please? I do not
> expect there to be much difference but just to be sure that the code I
> am looking at matches logs.
The log is here: https://pastebin.com/Pmn5ZwEM
mlocked memory keeps on increasing till panic.

> [...]
> > > > [  365.283361] oom02:4586 invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x16040c0(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOTRACK), nodemask=1,  order=0, oom_score_adj=0
> > > Yes because
> > > [  365.283499] Node 1 Normal free:19500kB min:33804kB low:165916kB high:298028kB active_anon:13312kB inactive_anon:172kB active_file:0kB inactive_file:1044kB unevictable:131560064kB writepending:0kB present:134213632kB managed:132113248kB mlocked:131560064kB slab_reclaimable:5748kB slab_unreclaimable:17808kB kernel_stack:2720kB pagetables:254636kB bounce:0kB free_pcp:10476kB local_pcp:144kB free_cma:0kB
> > >
> > > Although we have killed and reaped oom02 process Node1 is still below
> > > min watermark and that is why we have hit the oom killer again. It
> > > is not immediatelly clear to me why, that would require a deeper
> > > inspection.
> > I have a doubt here
> > my understanding of oom test: oom() function basically forks itself and
> > starts n threads each thread has a loop which allocates and touches memory
> > thus will trigger oom-killer and will kill the process. the parent process
> > is on a wait() and will print pass/fail.
> >
> > So IIUC when 4578 is reaped all the child threads should be terminated,
> > which happens in pass case (line 152)
> > But even after being killed and reaped,  the oom killer is invoked again
> > which doesn't seem right.
> As I've said the OOM killer hits because the memory from Node 1 didn't
> get freed for some reasov or got immediatally populated.
>
> > Could it be that the process is just marked hidden from oom including its
> > threads, thus oom-killer continues.
> The whole process should be killed and the OOM reaper should only mark
> the victim oom invisible _after_ the address space has been reaped (and
> memory freed). You said the patch from
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170724072332.31903-1-mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx didn't
> help so it shouldn't be a race with the last __mmput.
>
> Thanks!