Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752077Ab0BWK6f (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:58:35 -0500 Received: from rcpt-expgw.biglobe.ne.jp ([133.205.19.65]:41242 "EHLO rcpt-expgw.biglobe.ne.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751702Ab0BWK6d (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:58:33 -0500 X-Biglobe-Sender: Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:00:52 +0900 From: Daisuke Nishimura To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , rientjes@google.com, "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Daisuke Nishimura Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] memcg: page fault oom improvement v2 Message-Id: <20100223200052.29a3375d.d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <20100223173835.f260c111.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20100223120315.0da4d792.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100223140218.0ab8ee29.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20100223152116.327a777e.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20100223152650.e8fc275d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100223155543.796138fc.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20100223160714.72520b48.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100223173835.f260c111.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Reply-To: nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.18.3; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3300 Lines: 87 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:38:35 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:07:14 +0900 > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:55:43 +0900 > > Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:26:50 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:21:16 +0900 > > > > Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:02:18 +0900, Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:03:15 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > > > > Nishimura-san, could you review and test your extreme test case with this ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your patch. > > > > > > I don't know why, but the problem seems not so easy to cause in mmotm as in 2.6.32.8, > > > > > > but I'll try more anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > I can triggered the problem in mmotm. > > > > > > > > > > I'll continue my test with your patch applied. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. Updated one here. > > > > > > > Unfortunately, we need one more fix to avoid build error: remove the declaration > > > of mem_cgroup_oom_called() from memcontrol.h. > > > > > Ouch, I missed to add memcontrol.h to quilt's reflesh set.. > > This is updated one. Anyway, I'd like to wait for the next mmotm. > > We already have several changes. > > > > After reviewing again, we may be able to remove memcg->oom_jiffies. > Because select_bad_process() returns -1 if there is a TIF_MEMDIE task, > no oom-kill will happen if a tasks is being killed. > > But a concern is simultaneous calls of out-of-memory. I think mutex will > be necessary. I'll check tomorrow, again. > I see. I have one more point. > > @@ -1549,11 +1540,25 @@ static int __mem_cgroup_try_charge(struc > > } > > > > if (!nr_retries--) { > > - if (oom) { > > - mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask); > > + int oom_kill_called; > > + if (!oom) > > + goto nomem; > > + mutex_lock(&memcg_oom_mutex); > > + oom_kill_called = mem_cgroup_oom_called(mem_over_limit); > > + if (!oom_kill_called) > > record_last_oom(mem_over_limit); > > - } > > - goto nomem; > > + mutex_unlock(&memcg_oom_mutex); > > + if (!oom_kill_called) > > + mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(mem_over_limit, > > + gfp_mask); > > + else /* give a chance to die for other tasks */ > > + schedule_timeout(1); > > + nr_retries = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES; > > + /* Killed myself ? */ > > + if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE)) > > + continue; > > + /* For smooth oom-kill of current, return 0 */ > > + return 0; We must call css_put() and reset *memcg to NULL before returning 0. Otherwise, following commit_charge will commits the page(i.e. set PCG_USED) while we've not charged res_counter. (In fact, I saw res_counter underflow warnings(res_counter.c:72).) Thanks, Daisuke Nishimura. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/