Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem

[Tetsuo Handa]

Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 16-06-16 21:54:27, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Sat 11-06-16 17:10:03, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> [...]
> > I still don't like it. current->mm == NULL in
> > 
> > -	if (current->mm &&
> > -	    (fatal_signal_pending(current) || task_will_free_mem(current))) {
> > +	if (task_will_free_mem(current)) {
> > 
> > is not highly unlikely. You obviously break commit d7a94e7e11badf84
> > ("oom: don't count on mm-less current process") on CONFIG_MMU=n kernels.
> 
> I still fail to see why you care about that case so much. The heuristic
> was broken for other reasons before this patch. The patch fixes a class
> of issues for both mmu and nommu. I can restore the current->mm check
> for now but the more I am thinking about it the less I am sure the
> commit you are referring to is evem correct/necessary.
> 
> It claims that the OOM killer would be stuck because the child would be
> sitting in the final schedule() until the parent reaps it. That is not
> true, though, because victim would be unhashed down in release_task()
> path so it is not visible by the oom killer when it is waiting for the
> parent.  I have completely missed that part when reviewing the patch. Or
> am I missing something...

That explanation started from 201411292304.CGF68419.MOLHVQtSFFOOJF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:04:33 +0900) in your mailbox. I confirmed that a TIF_MEMDIE
zombie inside the final schedule() in do_exit() is waiting for parent to reap.
release_task() will be called when parent noticed that there is a zombie, but
this OOM livelock situation prevented parent looping inside page allocator waiting
for that TIF_MEMDIE zombie from noticing that there is a zombie.

> 
> Anyway, would you be OK with the patch if I added the current->mm check
> and resolve its necessity in a separate patch?

Please correct task_will_free_mem() in oom_kill_process() as well.