Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:25:35 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: david@fromorbit.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        aarcange@redhat.com, rientjes@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] mm: improve OOM mechanism v2
Message-ID: <20150430142534.GA16964@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <201504290050.FDE18274.SOJVtFLOMOQFFH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <20150429125506.GB7148@cmpxchg.org>
 <20150429144031.GB31341@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <201504300227.JCJ81217.FHOLSQVOFFJtMO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <20150429183135.GH31341@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <201504301844.CFE13027.FOMtJHQOFSOFVL@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201504301844.CFE13027.FOMtJHQOFSOFVL@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2376
Lines: 51

On Thu 30-04-15 18:44:25, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I mean we should eventually fail all the allocation types but GFP_NOFS
> > is coming from _carefully_ handled code paths which is an easier starting
> > point than a random code path in the kernel/drivers. So can we finally
> > move at least in this direction?
> 
> I agree that all the allocation types can fail unless GFP_NOFAIL is given.
> But I also expect that all the allocation types should not fail unless
> order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER or GFP_NORETRY is given or chosen as an OOM
> victim.

Yeah, let's keep shooting our feet and then look for workarounds to deal
with it...
 
> We already experienced at Linux 3.19 what happens if !__GFP_FS allocations
> fails. out_of_memory() is called by pagefault_out_of_memory() when 0x2015a
> (!__GFP_FS) allocation failed.

I have posted a patch to deal with this
(http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=142770374521952&w=2). There is no real
reason to do the GFP_NOFS from the page fault context just because the
mapping _always_ insists on it. Page fault simply _has_ to be GFP_FS
safe, we are badly broken otherwise. That patch should go in hand with
GFP_NOFS might fail one. I haven't posted it yet because I was waiting
for the merge window to close.

> This looks to me that !__GFP_FS allocations
> are effectively OOM killer context. It is not fair to kill the thread which
> triggered a page fault, for that thread may not be using so much memory
> (unfair from memory usage point of view) or that thread may be global init
> (unfair because killing the entire system than survive by killing somebody).

Why would we kill the faulting process?

> Also, failing the GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO allocations which are not triggered by
> a page fault generally causes more damage (e.g. taking filesystem error
> action) than survive by killing somebody. Therefore, I think we should not
> hesitate invoking the OOM killer for !__GFP_FS allocation.

No, we should fix those places and use proper gfp flags rather than
pretend that the problem doesn't exist and deal with all the side
effectes.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/