Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: introduce oom reaper

[Tetsuo Handa]

Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 25-11-15 15:08:06, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Hi Michal,
> > 
> > I think whatever we end up doing to smoothen things for the "common
> > case" (as much as OOM kills can be considered common), we need a plan
> > to resolve the memory deadlock situations in a finite amount of time.
> > 
> > Eventually we have to attempt killing another task. Or kill all of
> > them to save the kernel.
> > 
> > It just strikes me as odd to start with smoothening the common case,
> > rather than making it functionally correct first.
> 

Me too.

> I believe there is not an universally correct solution for this
> problem. OOM killer is a heuristic and a destructive one so I think we
> should limit it as much as possible. I do agree that we should allow an
> administrator to define a policy when things go terribly wrong - e.g.
> panic/emerg. reboot after the system is trashing on OOM for more than
> a defined amount of time. But I think that this is orthogonal to this
> patch. This patch should remove one large class of potential deadlocks
> and corner cases without too much cost or maintenance burden. It doesn't
> remove a need for the last resort solution though.
>  

 From the point of view of a technical staff at support center, offering
the last resort solution has higher priority than smoothening the common
case. We cannot test all memory pressure patterns before distributor's
kernel is released. We are too late to workaround unhandled patterns
after distributor's kernel is deployed to customer's systems.

Yet another report was posted in a different thread
"[PATCH] vmscan: do not throttle kthreads due to too_many_isolated".
I think I showed you several times including "mm,oom: The reason why
I continue proposing timeout based approach."
(uptime > 100 of http://I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/tmp/serial-20150920.txt.xz )
that we are already seeing infinite loop at too_many_isolated() even
without using out of tree drivers. I hope that my patch
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201505232339.DAB00557.VFFLHMSOJFOOtQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
included all necessary changes for serving as a base of the last resort.
Please don't loop forever when unexpected memory pressure is given.
Please don't assume somebody else can make forward progress.

Please do consider offering the last resort solution first.
That will help reducing unexplained hangup/reboot troubles.

Given that said, several comments on your patch.

> @@ -408,6 +413,108 @@ static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(oom_victims_wait);
>  
>  bool oom_killer_disabled __read_mostly;
>  
> +/*
> + * OOM Reaper kernel thread which tries to reap the memory used by the OOM
> + * victim (if that is possible) to help the OOM killer to move on.
> + */
> +static struct task_struct *oom_reaper_th;
> +static struct mm_struct *mm_to_reap;
> +static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(oom_reaper_wait);
> +
> +static bool __oom_reap_vmas(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> +	struct mmu_gather tlb;
> +	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> +	struct zap_details details = {.check_swap_entries = true,
> +				      .ignore_dirty = true};
> +	bool ret = true;
> +
> +	/* We might have raced with exit path */
> +	if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&mm->mm_users))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	if (!down_read_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)) {
> +		ret = false;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, mm, 0, -1);
> +	for (vma = mm->mmap ; vma; vma = vma->vm_next) {
> +		if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Only anonymous pages have a good chance to be dropped
> +		 * without additional steps which we cannot afford as we
> +		 * are OOM already.
> +		 */
> +		if (vma_is_anonymous(vma) || !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED))
> +			unmap_page_range(&tlb, vma, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end,
> +					 &details);

How do you plan to make sure that reclaimed pages are used by
fatal_signal_pending() tasks?
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201509242050.EHE95837.FVFOOtMQHLJOFS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201510121543.EJF21858.LtJFHOOOSQVMFF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> +	}
> +	tlb_finish_mmu(&tlb, 0, -1);
> +	up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> +out:
> +	mmput(mm);
> +	return ret;
> +}

> +static int oom_reaper(void *unused)
> +{
> +	DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> +
> +	while (!kthread_should_stop()) {

Is there a situation where this kernel thread should stop?
I think this kernel thread should not stop because restarting
this kernel thread might invoke the OOM killer.

But if there is such situation, leaving this function with
oom_reaper_th != NULL is not handled by wake_oom_reaper().

> +		struct mm_struct *mm;
> +
> +		prepare_to_wait(&oom_reaper_wait, &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> +		mm = READ_ONCE(mm_to_reap);

Why not simply mm = xchg(&mm_to_reap, NULL) and free the slot for
next OOM victim (though xchg() may not be sufficient)?

> +		if (!mm) {
> +			freezable_schedule();
> +			finish_wait(&oom_reaper_wait, &wait);
> +		} else {
> +			finish_wait(&oom_reaper_wait, &wait);
> +			oom_reap_vmas(mm);
> +			WRITE_ONCE(mm_to_reap, NULL);
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void wake_oom_reaper(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> +	struct mm_struct *old_mm;
> +
> +	if (!oom_reaper_th)
> +		return;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Make sure that only a single mm is ever queued for the reaper
> +	 * because multiple are not necessary and the operation might be
> +	 * disruptive so better reduce it to the bare minimum.
> +	 */
> +	old_mm = cmpxchg(&mm_to_reap, NULL, mm);

I think we should not skip queuing next OOM victim, for it is possible
that first OOM victim is chosen by one memory cgroup OOM, and next OOM
victim is chosen by another memory cgroup OOM or system wide OOM before
oom_reap_vmas() for first OOM victim completes.

To handle such case, we would need to do something like

 struct mm_struct {
     (...snipped...)
+    struct list_head *memdie; /* Set to non-NULL when chosen by OOM killer */
 }

and add to a list of OOM victims.

> +	if (!old_mm) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Pin the given mm. Use mm_count instead of mm_users because
> +		 * we do not want to delay the address space tear down.
> +		 */
> +		atomic_inc(&mm->mm_count);
> +		wake_up(&oom_reaper_wait);
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * mark_oom_victim - mark the given task as OOM victim
>   * @tsk: task to mark
> @@ -421,6 +528,11 @@ void mark_oom_victim(struct task_struct *tsk)
>  	/* OOM killer might race with memcg OOM */
>  	if (test_and_set_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_MEMDIE))
>  		return;
> +
> +	/* Kick oom reaper to help us release some memory */
> +	if (tsk->mm)
> +		wake_oom_reaper(tsk->mm);
> +

We cannot wake up at this moment. It is too early because there may be
other threads sharing tsk->mm but SIGKILL not yet received. Also, there
may be unkillable threads sharing tsk->mm. I think appropriate location
to wake the reaper up is

                  do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true);
          }
          rcu_read_unlock();
          /* here */
          mmdrop(mm);
          put_task_struct(victim);
  }

in oom_kill_process().

>  	/*
>  	 * Make sure that the task is woken up from uninterruptible sleep
>  	 * if it is frozen because OOM killer wouldn't be able to free
> @@ -767,3 +879,22 @@ void pagefault_out_of_memory(void)
>  
>  	mutex_unlock(&oom_lock);
>  }
> +
> +static int __init oom_init(void)
> +{
> +	oom_reaper_th = kthread_run(oom_reaper, NULL, "oom_reaper");
> +	if (IS_ERR(oom_reaper_th)) {
> +		pr_err("Unable to start OOM reaper %ld. Continuing regardless\n",
> +				PTR_ERR(oom_reaper_th));

BUG_ON(IS_ERR(oom_reaper_th)) or panic() should be OK.
Continuing with IS_ERR(oom_reaper_th) is not handled by wake_oom_reaper().
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/