Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 17:08:15 -0600
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, guro@fb.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2] mm, oom: fix concurrent munlock and oom reaperunmap
Message-ID: <20180424230815.GX17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20180420124044.GA17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804212019400.84222@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <201804221248.CHE35432.FtOMOLSHOFJFVQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804231706340.18716@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20180424130432.GB17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804241256000.231037@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20180424201352.GV17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804241317200.231037@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20180424203148.GW17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804241359280.186801@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804241359280.186801@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 24-04-18 14:07:52, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > > > > My patch has passed intensive testing on both x86 and powerpc, so I'll ask 
> > > > > that it's pushed for 4.17-rc3.  Many thanks to Tetsuo for the suggestion 
> > > > > on calling __oom_reap_task_mm() from exit_mmap().
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, but your patch does have a problem with blockable mmu notifiers
> > > > IIUC.
> > > 
> > > What on earth are you talking about?  exit_mmap() does 
> > > mmu_notifier_release().  There are no blockable mmu notifiers.
> > 
> > MMF_OOM_SKIP - remember? The thing that guarantees a forward progress.
> > So we cannot really depend on setting MMF_OOM_SKIP if a
> > mmu_notifier_release blocks for an excessive/unbounded amount of time.
> > 
> 
> If the thread is blocked in exit_mmap() because of mmu_notifier_release() 
> then the oom reaper will eventually grab mm->mmap_sem (nothing holding it 
> in exit_mmap()), return true, and oom_reap_task() will set MMF_OOM_SKIP.  
> This is unchanged with the patch and is a completely separate issue.

I must be missing something or we are talking past each other. So let me
be explicit. What does prevent the following

oom_reaper				exit_mmap
					  mutex_lock(oom_lock)
  mutex_lock(oom_lock)			    __oom_reap_task_mm
  					      mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start
					        # blockable mmu_notifier
						# which takes ages to
						# finish or depends on
						# an allocation (in)directly
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs