Received: by 2002:ad5:474a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i10csp507299imu; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 04:44:28 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Uocer6utoufeF53FjGokyotuBxcyrcESyB7+toO8pL8ptrE/V5Oc5xdS9dN0QZcqbX0mMK X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bd92:: with SMTP id q18mr2009666pls.167.1544186668823; Fri, 07 Dec 2018 04:44:28 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1544186668; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=D3gq7BraSx3o5hRro61NQ5jTU4iNyHmtaUr2AMphqc2VqDV4XwerX+v27Tj/XASaCa VbYwQMCltj+IunRy3htR3n8cEwjCe2OzCD5bbn32SFGB3ZkwaoPXEiKtuxcN1VHASQC9 g8l1929sWXJza2lVdCTsb2ZGApO1/MmODXZVQVMwjNSX/pcJ4uq0+Eg+9qZF0AFjUrTW /jZnSYigUq4npYHVZejPdAMdffVu0xtawl3O081BMf59btbkDapKpftnXxYCpoJhi5Sx vNmInyu88d9pMp5UUhuHUlEmUkvCPw5p1hqfI2pCOFpw2UFUEIpXgaIA7Vv1nnzpy5O2 sCMg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=2qsZTGJnooJr351Ntoa75S8P6E5o13jobrIPVWykhaU=; b=mgCKzln1dgiCqI4Elw254/Om056sCFGDpxgIbgJlQr/4ZtRcNEZRjVScn0Pa2qRZgI A0vdeHP3CwzU06dzKLzeOSsCr+TMRUM/m1NR31KH5OGqOm4Sr0WjagDm1TxARk80E92S JRhtg+cm2R5qjSkvQ2tyQO/sBcjnF48xqLzvmv400viHyesxgKsbJFNpejHYHzDgPzwu M4vHMwSpu9MAEHI/9kQmxVVzqrFSOxQ/aR58SPGdjkj8eIr4uGWFVwdIQ6vR9eV1vlGl rMZxxBIvbgFD+62k/zvW3UJDo8xUHvOm7gsqlT3brQEab375sRx5dTUA1k1tRQtLL/8C zHEA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id g10si2967438plm.1.2018.12.07.04.44.13; Fri, 07 Dec 2018 04:44:28 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726030AbeLGMne (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 7 Dec 2018 07:43:34 -0500 Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp ([202.181.97.72]:47446 "EHLO www262.sakura.ne.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725994AbeLGMne (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2018 07:43:34 -0500 Received: from fsav303.sakura.ne.jp (fsav303.sakura.ne.jp [153.120.85.134]) by www262.sakura.ne.jp (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id wB7ChEO7026052; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 21:43:14 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp) Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (202.181.97.72) by fsav303.sakura.ne.jp (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/530/fsav303.sakura.ne.jp); Fri, 07 Dec 2018 21:43:14 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/530/fsav303.sakura.ne.jp) Received: from [192.168.1.8] (softbank126126163036.bbtec.net [126.126.163.36]) (authenticated bits=0) by www262.sakura.ne.jp (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wB7Ch81o025973 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Dec 2018 21:43:14 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] memcg: do not report racy no-eligible OOM tasks To: Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes , Andrew Morton , LKML References: <20181022071323.9550-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20181022071323.9550-3-mhocko@kernel.org> <20181026142531.GA27370@cmpxchg.org> <20181026192551.GC18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20181026193304.GD18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20181106124224.GM27423@dhcp22.suse.cz> <8725e3b3-3752-fa7f-a88f-5ff4f5b6eace@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> <20181107100810.GA27423@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Tetsuo Handa Message-ID: <8a71ecd8-e7bc-25de-184f-dfda511ee0d1@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 21:43:07 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181107100810.GA27423@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018/11/07 19:08, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 07-11-18 18:45:27, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> On 2018/11/06 21:42, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Tue 06-11-18 18:44:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >>> [...] >>>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c >>>> index 6e1469b..a97648a 100644 >>>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c >>>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c >>>> @@ -1382,8 +1382,13 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask, >>>> }; >>>> bool ret; >>>> >>>> - mutex_lock(&oom_lock); >>>> - ret = out_of_memory(&oc); >>>> + if (mutex_lock_killable(&oom_lock)) >>>> + return true; >>>> + /* >>>> + * A few threads which were not waiting at mutex_lock_killable() can >>>> + * fail to bail out. Therefore, check again after holding oom_lock. >>>> + */ >>>> + ret = fatal_signal_pending(current) || out_of_memory(&oc); >>>> mutex_unlock(&oom_lock); >>>> return ret; >>>> } >>> >>> If we are goging with a memcg specific thingy then I really prefer >>> tsk_is_oom_victim approach. Or is there any reason why this is not >>> suitable? >>> >> >> Why need to wait for mark_oom_victim() called after slow printk() messages? >> >> If current thread got Ctrl-C and thus current thread can terminate, what is >> nice with waiting for the OOM killer? If there are several OOM events in >> multiple memcg domains waiting for completion of printk() messages? I don't >> see points with waiting for oom_lock, for try_charge() already allows current >> thread to terminate due to fatal_signal_pending() test. > > mutex_lock_killable would take care of exiting task already. I would > then still prefer to check for mark_oom_victim because that is not racy > with the exit path clearing signals. I can update my patch to use > _killable lock variant if we are really going with the memcg specific > fix. > > Johaness? > No response for one month. When can we get to an RCU stall problem syzbot reported?