Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] mm, oom: hand over MMF_OOM_SKIP to exit path if it is guranteed to finish
From: Tetsuo Handa
Date: Tue Oct 30 2018 - 08:03:08 EST
On 2018/10/30 20:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 30-10-18 18:47:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2018/10/30 15:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 30-10-18 13:45:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>>> Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>>>> vma = remove_vma(vma);
>>>>> }
>>>>> vm_unacct_memory(nr_accounted);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Now that the full address space is torn down, make sure the
>>>>> + * OOM killer skips over this task
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (oom)
>>>>> + set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> /* Insert vm structure into process list sorted by address
>>>>
>>>> I don't like setting MMF_OOF_SKIP after remove_vma() loop. 50 users might
>>>> call vma->vm_ops->close() from remove_vma(). Some of them are doing fs
>>>> writeback, some of them might be doing GFP_KERNEL allocation from
>>>> vma->vm_ops->open() with a lock also held by vma->vm_ops->close().
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that waiting for completion of remove_vma() loop is safe.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by 'safe' here?
>>>
>>
>> safe = "Does not cause OOM lockup."
>>
>> remove_vma() is allowed to sleep, and some users might depend on memory
>> allocation when the OOM killer is waiting for remove_vma() to complete.
>
> But MMF_OOF_SKIP is set after we are done with remove_vma. In fact it is
> the very last thing in exit_mmap. So I do not follow what you mean.
>
So what? Think the worst case. Quite obvious bug here.
What happens if memory reclaimed by up to __free_pgtables() was consumed by somebody
else, and then some vma->vm_ops->close() started waiting for memory allocation due to
dependency? It is called "OOM lockup" because the OOM killer cannot be enabled because
MMF_OOM_SKIP cannot be set because vma->vm_ops->close() is waiting for the OOM killer
due to memory allocation dependency in vma->vm_ops->close() from remove_vma()...