Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 10:42:56 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>
Cc:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the limit
 of dying tasks
Message-ID: <YT8PEBbYZhLixEJD@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <5b06a490-55bc-a6a0-6c85-690254f86fad@virtuozzo.com>
 <099aa0db-045a-e5b8-6df7-b7c3fc4d3caa@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <4a407474-ff7a-9e4f-d314-ab85f0eeaadf@virtuozzo.com>
 <YTtx3toUOMLXk4GZ@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <9556c2ae-2dc8-9d0a-55de-002d674680bf@virtuozzo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9556c2ae-2dc8-9d0a-55de-002d674680bf@virtuozzo.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 13-09-21 11:29:37, Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 9/10/21 5:55 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 10-09-21 16:20:58, Vasily Averin wrote:
> >> On 9/10/21 4:04 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >>> Can't we add fatal_signal_pending(current) test to vmalloc() loop?
> > 
> > We can and we should.
> > 
> >> 1) this has been done in the past but has been reverted later.
> > 
> > The reason for that should be addressed IIRC.
> 
> I don't know the details of this, and I need some time to investigate it.

b8c8a338f75e ("Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"")
should give a good insight and references.

> >> 2) any vmalloc changes will affect non-memcg allocations too.
> >>  If we're doing memcg-related checks it's better to do it in one place.
> > 
> > I think those two things are just orthogonal. Bailing out from vmalloc
> > early sounds reasonable to me on its own. Allocating a large thing that
> > is likely to go away with the allocating context is just a waste of
> > resources and potential reason to disruptions to others.
> 
> I doubt that fatal signal should block any vmalloc allocations.
> I assume there are situations where rollback of some cancelled operation uses vmalloc.
> Or coredump saving on some remote storage can uses vmalloc.

If there really are any such requirements then this should be really
documented. 

> However for me it's abnormal that even OOM-killer cannot cancel huge vmalloc allocation.
> So I think tsk_is_oom_victim(current) check should be added to vm_area_alloc_pages() 
> to break vmalloc cycle.

Why should oom killed task behave any different than any other task
killed without a way to handle the signal?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs