MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211208212211.2860249-1-surenb@google.com> <YbHIaq9a0CtqRulE@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAJuCfpHwNS8RFPF9nzaSB8Br8Jah5_dcnQeatRZp60vmX5n6Vg@mail.gmail.com> <YbIzOR13uPOI5EMB@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <YbIzOR13uPOI5EMB@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Dec 2021 09:06:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpHs_25TQ7pHDhPXghA46jmXa5N2OOeBByE-sn+dQ-aM2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/3] mm: drop MMF_OOM_SKIP from exit_mmap
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com,
        willy@infradead.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, guro@fb.com,
        riel@surriel.com, minchan@kernel.org, kirill@shutemov.name,
        aarcange@redhat.com, christian@brauner.io, hch@infradead.org,
        oleg@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, jannh@google.com,
        shakeelb@google.com, luto@kernel.org, christian.brauner@ubuntu.com,
        fweimer@redhat.com, jengelh@inai.de, timmurray@google.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@android.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 8:47 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu 09-12-21 08:24:04, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 1:12 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do we want this on top?
> >
> > As we discussed in this thread
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/YY4snVzZZZYhbigV@dhcp22.suse.cz,
> > __oom_reap_task_mm in exit_mmap allows oom-reaper/process_mrelease to
> > unmap pages in parallel with exit_mmap without blocking each other.
> > Removal of __oom_reap_task_mm from exit_mmap prevents this parallelism
> > and has a negative impact on performance. So the conclusion of that
> > thread I thought was to keep that part. My understanding is that we
> > also wanted to remove MMF_OOM_SKIP as a follow-up patch but
> > __oom_reap_task_mm would stay.
>
> OK, then we were talking past each other, I am afraid. I really wanted
> to get rid of this oom specific stuff from exit_mmap. It was there out
> of necessity. With a proper locking we can finally get rid of the crud.
> As I've said previously oom reaping has never been a hot path.
>
> If we really want to optimize this path then I would much rather see a
> generic solution which would allow to move the write lock down after
> unmap_vmas. That would require oom reaper to be able to handle mlocked
> memory.

Ok, let's work on that and when that's done we can get rid of the oom
stuff in exit_mmap. I'll look into this over the weekend and will
likely be back with questions.
Thanks!

> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs