Re: mm, oom_reaper: How to handle race with oom_killer_disable() ?

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 22-06-16 06:47:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 22-06-16 00:32:29, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Hmm, what about the following instead. It is rather a workaround than a
> > > > full flaged fix but it seems much more easier and shouldn't introduce
> > > > new issues.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I think that will work. But I think below patch (marking signal_struct
> > > to ignore TIF_MEMDIE instead of clearing TIF_MEMDIE from task_struct) on top of
> > > current linux.git will implement no-lockup requirement. No race is possible unlike
> > > "[PATCH 10/10] mm, oom: hide mm which is shared with kthread or global init".
> > 
> > Not really. Because without the exit_oom_victim from oom_reaper you have
> > no guarantee that the oom_killer_disable will ever return. I have
> > mentioned that in the changelog. There is simply no guarantee the oom
> > victim will ever reach exit_mm->exit_oom_victim.
> 
> Why? Since any allocation after setting oom_killer_disabled = true will be
> forced to fail, nobody will be blocked on waiting for memory allocation. Thus,
> the TIF_MEMDIE tasks will eventually reach exit_mm->exit_oom_victim, won't it?

What if it gets blocked waiting for an operation which cannot make any
forward progress because it cannot proceed with an allocation (e.g.
an open coded allocation retry loop - not that uncommon when sending
a bio)? I mean if we want to guarantee a forward progress then there has
to be something to clear the flag no matter in what state the oom victim
is or give up on oom_killer_disable.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs