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:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 15:02:19 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@openvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg 3/3] memcg: handle memcg oom failures
Message-ID: <YXATW7KsUZzbbGHy@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <YW/WoJDFM3ddHn7Y@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <cover.1634730787.git.vvs@virtuozzo.com>
 <fb33f4bd-34cd-2187-eff4-7c1c11d5ae94@virtuozzo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fb33f4bd-34cd-2187-eff4-7c1c11d5ae94@virtuozzo.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 20-10-21 15:14:27, Vasily Averin wrote:
> mem_cgroup_oom() can fail if current task was marked unkillable
> and oom killer cannot find any victim.
> 
> Currently we force memcg charge for such allocations,
> however it allow memcg-limited userspace task in to overuse assigned limits
> and potentially trigger the global memory shortage.

You should really go into more details whether that is a practical
problem to handle. OOM_FAILED means that the memcg oom killer couldn't
find any oom victim so it cannot help with a forward progress. There are
not that many situations when that can happen. Naming that would be
really useful.
 
> Let's fail the memory charge in such cases.
> 
> This failure should be somehow recognised in #PF context,

explain why

> so let's use current->memcg_in_oom == (struct mem_cgroup *)OOM_FAILED
> 
> ToDo: what is the best way to notify pagefault_out_of_memory() about 
>     mem_cgroup_out_of_memory failure ?

why don't you simply remove out_of_memory from pagefault_out_of_memory
and leave it only with the blocking memcg OOM handling? Wouldn't that be a
more generic solution? Your first patch already goes that way partially.

This change is more risky than the first one. If somebody returns
VM_FAULT_OOM without invoking allocator then it can loop for ever but
invoking OOM killer in such a situation is equally wrong as the oom
killer cannot really help, right?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs