Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Introduce bpf_select_task

[Michal Hocko]

On Fri 04-08-23 17:38:03, Chuyi Zhou wrote:
> This patch adds a new hook bpf_select_task in oom_evaluate_task. It
> takes oc and current iterating task as parameters and returns a result
> indicating which one is selected by bpf program.
> 
> Although bpf_select_task is used to bypass the default method, there are
> some existing rules should be obeyed. Specifically, we skip these
> "unkillable" tasks(e.g., kthread, MMF_OOM_SKIP, in_vfork()).So we do not
> consider tasks with lowest score returned by oom_badness except it was
> caused by OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN.

Is this really necessary? I do get why we need to preserve
OOM_SCORE_ADJ_* semantic for in-kernel oom selection logic but why
should an arbitrary oom policy care. Look at it from an arbitrary user
space based policy. It just picks a task or memcg and kills taks by
sending SIG_KILL (or maybe SIG_TERM first) signal. oom_score constrains
will not prevent anybody from doing that.

tsk_is_oom_victim (and MMF_OOM_SKIP) is a slightly different case but
not too much. The primary motivation is to prevent new oom victims
while there is one already being killed. This is a reasonable heuristic
especially with the async oom reclaim (oom_reaper). It also reduces
amount of oom emergency memory reserves to some degree but since those
are not absolute this is no longer the primary motivation. _But_ I can
imagine that some policies might be much more aggresive and allow to
select new victims if preexisting are not being killed in time.

oom_unkillable_task is a general sanity check so it should remain in
place.

I am not really sure about oom_task_origin. That is just a very weird
case and I guess it wouldn't hurt to keep it in generic path.

All that being said I think we want something like the following (very
pseudo-code). I have no idea what is the proper way how to define BPF
hooks though so a help from BPF maintainers would be more then handy
---
diff --git a/include/linux/nmi.h b/include/linux/nmi.h
index 00982b133dc1..9f1743ee2b28 100644
--- a/include/linux/nmi.h
+++ b/include/linux/nmi.h
@@ -190,10 +190,6 @@ static inline bool trigger_all_cpu_backtrace(void)
 {
 	return false;
 }
-static inline bool trigger_allbutself_cpu_backtrace(void)
-{
-	return false;
-}
 static inline bool trigger_cpumask_backtrace(struct cpumask *mask)
 {
 	return false;
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 612b5597d3af..c9e04be52700 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -317,6 +317,22 @@ static int oom_evaluate_task(struct task_struct *task, void *arg)
 	if (!is_memcg_oom(oc) && !oom_cpuset_eligible(task, oc))
 		goto next;
 
+	/*
+	 * If task is allocating a lot of memory and has been marked to be
+	 * killed first if it triggers an oom, then select it.
+	 */
+	if (oom_task_origin(task)) {
+		points = LONG_MAX;
+		goto select;
+	}
+
+	switch (bpf_oom_evaluate_task(task, oc, &points)) {
+		case -EOPNOTSUPP: break; /* No BPF policy */
+		case -EBUSY: goto abort; /* abort search process */
+		case 0: goto next; /* ignore process */
+		default: goto select; /* note the task */
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * This task already has access to memory reserves and is being killed.
 	 * Don't allow any other task to have access to the reserves unless
@@ -329,15 +345,6 @@ static int oom_evaluate_task(struct task_struct *task, void *arg)
 		goto abort;
 	}
 
-	/*
-	 * If task is allocating a lot of memory and has been marked to be
-	 * killed first if it triggers an oom, then select it.
-	 */
-	if (oom_task_origin(task)) {
-		points = LONG_MAX;
-		goto select;
-	}
-
 	points = oom_badness(task, oc->totalpages);
 	if (points == LONG_MIN || points < oc->chosen_points)
 		goto next;
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs